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