Subject: RE: [docbook] Whatever happened too CSS+XML?
--- Peter Ring <PRI@magnus.dk> wrote: <snip>Lots of really good ideas</snip> > It might be neccessary to use some extensions > to or an alternative represenation of CSS in > order to implement property groups and other > features that cannot be modelled in CSS. > > Kind regards > Peter Ring I have some experience in extending the (modular) xhtml 1.0 Basic DTD to great affect (I added XInclude among other things). I also find that xhtml is many times much easier to use when its xml qualities are focused on - so I'd like to jump into this excellent conversation by pointing out that an extended xhtml could be perhaps the first transformation in the pipeline concentrating on the semantic meaning of the docbook xml. And then from there transform again into xhtml 1.0 strict to conform to www best practice (or HTML 4.1 for the purests out there). http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-basic/ http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Guide/xhtml-m12n-tutorial/ Scott