[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
Re: CSS and XSL
Subject: Re: CSS and XSL From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 10:23:16 -0500 |
At 07:35 AM 2/14/99 -0600, Paul Prescod wrote: >I don't think that there is any value in changing venue this late in the >thread. You seemed to misunderstand my proposal so hopefully we can come >to agreement once you understand it. Also, as a practical matter I expect >the readers of XSL-list to have more of an interest in applying style to >XML than the readers of "www-style". Well, if you want the benefit of an audience stacked in your favor, I suppose that's all right. As a practical matter, I expect the readers of www-style to have more experience with (and interest in) CSS than the readers of XSL-list, but okay. Also, please don't assume that all 'misunderstandings' can be smoothed over and lead to agreement. On a fundamental level, I think we disagree. What you see as a brutal impedance mismatch I see as a positive feature keeping styling and structure out of each other's way. >"Simon St.Laurent" wrote: >> >> Well, actually if I wanted to hard-code, or default particular CSS >> properties, I'd do it in an external sheet - that's what they're for, and >> that's why it's called 'cascading'. > >We're talking about the situation where someone wants *inline style*. Fine, although inline style is itself something that the style community has gone out of its way to discourage repeatedly. Applying style to a particular element within a document doesn't necessarily require using a style attribute within the element, either - you can reference the element (via an ID, for instance) and use a style sheet custom made for that particular document if you really need granularity. Requires the use of external resources perhaps, but the granularity you keep asking for is already available. >> Constrain? Unless I was the >> over-zealous corporate designer who wants to force everyone into a >> particular letterhead, I probably wouldn't want to do that. > >Or maybe you are trying to comply with federal laws, the violation of >which are cause for shutting down your corporation. Or maybe you just need >a B element that consistently generates bold. There are terabytes on top >of terabytes of data in the world where the only thing you can say about >an element is that it should be bold. > >If inline CSS style makes sense then #FIXing or defaulting it makes just >as much sense. If your constraints are really that critical, then yes, you should specify the style - all of the style - and use #FIXED on the style attribute to keep anyone from messing with it. Can't say I know of any cases where using italic instead of bold gets your corporation shut down, but maybe your federal government is harsher than the one I'm familiar with. (And I speak as someone who recently spent three months sorting out the IRS cashing my check and losing the record that they'd cashed it.) As for bold, if that's all you want, style="font-weight:bold;" will do the trick quite nicely. It'll even play nice with external style sheets, making certain that your B elements stay bold whatever other styling may be applied. >> I could, of course, define style with a #FIXED value, if I really wanted, >> but why? > >As it is, you can define style with a #FIXED value, but that fixes *all* >of the style values at once. If you don't comply with XML conventions >XML's features (like #FIXED) don't "work right." Given the terrifying and/or highly constrained situations you described above, I'd say it works perfectly. >> Making CSS style sheets use an XML vocabulary is fine with me. Making >> every application that allows a local override of those styles declare an >> enormous mess of attributes to represent every possible property seems like >> a giant waste of time, processing, and energy. > >Who is suggesting that? I said that when CSS is used *inline* in XML >documents it should use XML conventions. I didn't say that CSS must always >be used inline in XML documents. Two different issues. And I'm saying that we don't need to force CSS to use your conventions because you can achieve the same results quite easily with style sheets that are out-of-line. It may be that I lack sympathy with your need to put styles in straitjackets, but I don't see why your concerns are worth exploding CSS style information into a billion different attributes to represent each property separately. >> Yeah, aligning it is real simple: >> >> <!ATTLIST myElement >> style CDATA #IMPLIED> >> >> Making it align with _your_ conventions, on the other hand, is a different >> matter that makes lots of people's lives much more complicated. > >The convention of using separate attribute values for each property of an >element is not "my" convention. It is the XML convention used by everyone >except SVG. You haven't presented any evidence that separate attributes >would make anyone's life more complicated. You should say something soon >because the XSL formatting object paradigm uses separate attributes and if >they are going down the wrong path then they should know. Maybe this is better put as the 'XML convention used by everyone [except those who disagree that it is a convention appropriate to all cases]'. If XSL wants to use separate attributes, dandy for them. The XSL group is working with a very different processing model than CSS, has a very different set of interests, and a totally different perspective. It's not necessary for CSS, where there are already plenty of opportunities to set properties separately. If the CSS folks want to create a convention for doing so in XML documents, they're welcome to do so. Personally, I think _forcing_ everyone to do so is misguided at best. Let's see here. <!ENTITY % css-atts " css:style CDATA #IMPLIED "> or <!ENTITY % css-atts " css:margin-top CDATA #IMPLIED css:margin-bottom CDATA #IMPLIED css:margin-right CDATA #IMPLIED css:margin-left CDATA #IMPLIED css:margin CDATA #IMPLIED css:padding-top CDATA #IMPLIED css:padding-right CDATA #IMPLIED css:padding-bottom CDATA #IMPLIED css:padding-left CDATA #IMPLIED css:padding CDATA #IMPLIED css:border-top-width CDATA #IMPLIED css:border-bottom-width CDATA #IMPLIED css:border-left-width CDATA #IMPLIED css:border-right-width CDATA #IMPLIED css:border-width CDATA #IMPLIED css:border-top-color CDATA #IMPLIED css:border-right-color CDATA #IMPLIED css:border-bottom-color CDATA #IMPLIED css:border-left-color CDATA #IMPLIED css:border-color CDATA #IMPLIED css:border-top-style CDATA #IMPLIED css:border-right-style CDATA #IMPLIED css:border-bottom-style CDATA #IMPLIED css:border-left-style CDATA #IMPLIED css:border-style CDATA #IMPLIED css:border-top CDATA #IMPLIED css:border-right CDATA #IMPLIED css:border-left CDATA #IMPLIED css:border-bottom CDATA #IMPLIED css:border CDATA #IMPLIED css:display (inline | block | list-item | run-in | compact | marker | table | inline-table | table-row-group | table-header-group | table-footer-group | table-row | table-column-group | table-column | table-cell | table-caption | none | inherit) "inline" css:position (static | relative | absolute | fixed | inherit) "static" css:top CDATA #IMPLIED css:right CDATA #IMPLIED css:left CDATA #IMPLIED css:bottom CDATA #IMPLIED css:float (left | right | none | inherit) #IMPLIED css:clear (left | right | none | both | inherit) "none" css:z-index CDATA #IMPLIED css:direction CDATA (ltr | rtl) css:unicode-bidi (normal | embed | bidi-override | inherit) normal [etc...] "> You can do it (I just typed it in), and it might be easier for some applications, but processing the style attribute to break it up isn't that hard, if you really need your information in that format. Remember, CSS is about styling 'in-place', without a transformation and without formatting objects. The syntax proposed in the note described one possibility for using CSS to create FO-like elements, which is hardly the way CSS is typically used in its 'native' environment. Earlier this week I said I'd stop griping about XSL; I'd appreciate it if you'd stop griping about CSS. Have you ever actually used CSS? On a large scale project? Just curious. Simon St.Laurent XML: A Primer / Building XML Applications (April) Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies http://www.simonstl.com XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: CSS and XSL, Paul Prescod | Thread | Re: CSS and XSL, Paul Prescod |
Re: CSS and XSL, Paul Prescod | Date | Re: CSS and XSL, Paul Prescod |
Month |