Re: [docbook] Whatever happened too CSS+XML?

["Steven T. Hatton" <hattons@globalsymmetry.com>]

On Tuesday 08 November 2005 12:37 pm, Dave Pawson wrote:

> So why are you slagging off docbook then?

I'm not.  If I see problems I express what I see.  Trust me, the things 
I /don't/ like do not get the attention I am giving DocBook.

> >  It is specifically intended as a means of
> > rendering it.  I don't believe there are very many CSS functions which
> > can be achieved by XSLT without the assistance of something similar to
> > CSS.  The current practice of transforming DocBook into HTML is merely
> > hiding the fact that it's relying on what amounts to CSS for the final
> > rendering.
>
> False.

As you will.

http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/layout/style/nsComputedDOMStyle.h
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Gecko_DOM_Reference
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/inspector/
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/dom/technote/tn-dom-table/

> >  Web browsers are ideal tools for processing XML.
>
> XSLT implementations are far better IMHO.

http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Transforming_XML_with_XSLT#XSLT.2FXPath_reference

> > There are roles for XSLT.  Many of its capabilities are probably, as yet,
> > unimagined.  But many of the current applications I've seen seem to be
> > workarounds to address the lack to good tools supporting the existing W3C
> > recommendations for CSS and XML.
>
> More ... misapprehensions.
>
> >  Quite surprisingly, one of the most capable
> > challengers to XSLT that I am aware of is Mathematica.
>
> Pardon?

http://documents.wolfram.com/mathematica/Add-onsLinks/\
XMLCapabilities/TransformingXML/ComparingXSLTAndMathematica.html

Steven