Subject: Re: [docbook] Whatever happened too CSS+XML?
On Monday 14 November 2005 04:16 am, Jirka Kosek wrote: > Noah Slater wrote: > > I know... but is it really that wrong to combine the two like this? Is > > there no way of conceivably mixing the two in harmony? Perhaps a > > <html:a> embedded in a <link> etc? A bit hacky I know - but you don't > > loose any semantics. > > Well, if you would like type link twice and create custom DocBook grammar. > > > What would be the harm of using only > > <html:table>, <html:img> and <html:a> in replacements of the DocBook > > elements in your document to produce a perfectly valid document which > > could be rendered by most browsers? > > Whole thread was about ability to use DocBook XML directly with CSS. As > you can see, this is not possible, you must use XHTML elements for some > things. In this case doing *automatic* (eg. using XSLT) conversion from > DocBook to XHTML seems as way to go. > > > example) the overall semantics are the same. Does it really matter > > which namespace it belongs to in this instance? > > For processing tools yes. I posted a link to this discussion's archive, as well as a very brief synopsis to netscape.public.mozilla.xml on news.mozilla.org. I really wish I could dedicate more time to this topic. It is important to me. Unfortunately, I have other pressing projects which need my attention. I hope people can work productively to address the objections raised against using XML+CSS without the XHTML translation step. Steven