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

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

On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 11:56 +0100, Peter Ring wrote:

> If we have
> 
> - mean clean lean XHTML that accurately represent
(in whose opinion?)
>   the rendering *intention* 
of whom?
> without messing with
>   the actual rendition
> 
> - a modular CSS that reflects the *types* of
>   rendition intention, take advantage of the
>   'Cascading' in CSS and some way to represent 
>   property groups
> 
> it is piece of cake to change fonts, colors, margins, 
> linking behaviour, etc. in a typographically consistent 
> manner.

Too many assumptions there Peter?
I agree with your starting point.
Clean XHTML with CSS 'hooks'

> The main point of using CSS is actually that you can get rough 
> and ready output for a website, while I re-purpose the same XHTML
> for an e-book, and someone else syndicates the content into a 
> glossy weblog.

Totally agree. CSS (for some browsers) is quite good.
How it's used is another matter.
I might call it taste?
I like X
you like Y

That's all I'm saying.

In that respect, yes we seem to agree.
 Bit like saying that a particular codec
is 'better' than another.
Its all subjective.
regards DaveP