Costello, Roger L. wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> CSS does not use the XML syntax. Why not?
>
Cause it had to fit into attribute values?
> Is there something about CSS that makes its current syntax better
> suited than the XML syntax?
>
It can fit into attribute values. Terser. Looks more C/INI -like.
> In general, when should the XML syntax be used, and when should it not
> be used?
>
At some point down the foodchain, structure becomes unimportant and
impliable.
For example, in CSS what do { and } mean (i.e. what name would we give
them in an XML version?) The answer: who cares! No name is best
because its name would just be some indication that it groups and {
conveys it just as well.
I think when you have a change in domain, it is natural to have a change
in notation.
And when there is already an extablished notation, having XML carving
doesn't give much benefit.
The same its true for explaining microformats too: needed in attributes,
uninteresting regular structure, change in domain from other data
content of document, ?use of established notations?
Why CSS? Why not URLs too?
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
