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

[Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>]

On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 00:43 +0100, Peter Ring wrote:

> Earlier this year, it was suggested on the docbook-apps list 
>that lean clean XHTML output might be desirable for some purposes [2]. 
>As Bob Stayton says [3]:
> 
> "Since this XHTML would be dependent on CSS for styling, I think the spec would have to include a template for the CSS."

If I ever get round to it, I'd like to try Norm's rev 5 approach to
customisation 
for this. I still think it's a worker, and a common format could
possibly meet the 80%.
http://norman.walsh.name/2005/11/05/dbtiny 
> 
> This "template for the CSS" would amount to a declarative spec for rendering expectations of (a significant part of) DocBook elements.
> The CSS should be modular to better refelect the various genii and
species of DocBook >elements. A modular template might rely on
extensions similar to XXE's [4], or a trivial
> representation of the CSS syntax in XML.

I guess this is where we differ in our opinions. (Or I misuderstand the
intent).
I (say) want rough and ready output for a website.
Peter wants very slick presentations for his legal customers.

I can't see a common CSS model there, can you?

I like the way I can ask the stylesheets to hang class attributes for me
to use with CSS,
but I'll use purple background where Peter will want Royal blue :-)





-- 
Regards, 

Dave Pawson
XSLT + Docbook FAQ
http://www.dpawson.co.uk