[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date]

Re: Fw: Fw: W3C-transformation language petition


Subject: Re: Fw: Fw: W3C-transformation language petition
From: Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 11:00:38 +0000

Hi Oren.

A counter example? Hmmm, I hate being asked to back up my spurious
opinions. I far prefer to shoot my mouth off and run, but now you've called
me on it....

OK, say we want to address the issue of not just Web pages and printed
documents etc., but realise that Web applications are on the increase, in
particular on the intranet. So, maybe on the basis of that we decide it
would be nice to have...

<fo:window>
     ...content...
</fo:window>

That can be defined to open either a window internal to the user agent
making MDIs easy, or external to the user agent in a manner similar to that
we currently have.

Follwoing the path of FOs we are able to *easily* convey such intent to
both the user agent and other developers. As I've suggested before, and I
realise I'm in the minority, IMO CSS can only be seen as formating
parameters and doesn't even constitute a full formatting spec..

So, straight back at ya Oren. How might the above be expressed as cleanly
"the CSS way"?

And given that a way can be found (display: window; maybe, although the CSS
paradigm starts to get strained), shall we inflict such stretches of the
CSS fabric every time we want to extend XSL?

As far as I can see the FOs currently given really are only the starting
point, and over time they would extend. With CSS we are left with problems
expressing anything that isn't just a block or and inline element.

Another thing that I see watching both Mozilla and the growing array of
"skinable" applications. Now something like FOs might be perfect for
interface defination, although it would almost definately be best for such
implimentations to sit in their own namespace I think the whole thing would
be far more intuitive if FOs are the basis from which formatting start. If
we are left with CSS as our basis then I don't see it as feasible to attain
any degree of unity of approach the the ever broadening formatting
concerns.

Styling of XML is going to be a *very* broad concern ::shrug:: I just don't
believe that CSS is up to the job, but I appreciate that many do.

As for the large body of your post that suggests broadly that the worth of
FOs will be resolved by the market place... hmmm... I've one thing to say
to you Oren..... *Windows* :P

Cheers
     Guy.





xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 03/03/99 08:48:30 PM

To:   xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cc:    (bcc: Guy Murphy/UK/MAID)
Subject:  Fw: Fw: W3C-transformation language petition




Guy_Murphy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
[SNIP]

Again, anything that can be done the FO way can be done the CSS way.
_Anything_ (counter example, please?). I'm not certain this particular
issue
should be handled at the FO/CSS level, though.
[SNIP]
 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list






 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list



Current Thread
Keywords
xml