esoteric said:
stevo_ said:
*snip*
It's still advanced tho! A bit curious about how similar XSL-FO and XPS are. XSL-FO has the advantage of being XML based and therefore extensible, compared to CSS. On the other hand CSS could be seen as a DSL. The ideal is to be able to use whichever you like
the most - so the extensible format when you need it and the DSL when you don't need extensibility. I wonder if there's already an Mgrammar for CSS.
CSS is extensible, it allows new properties (provided there is a vendor prefix like "-moz" or "-webkit")
and new selectors. You can probably get away with adding your own @blocks too. The specification states that unrecognised syntax should be ignored which makes it future-proof (unless they add in some paradigm-shifting syntax features).
CSS
is a DSL, but it isn't programming since it's declaritive. I don't see the point in making everything have an XML syntax. Keep things simple, and CSS's syntax is a
lot more simpler than XMLs, tidier, less clutter, and easier to parse (so simple you can write a fairly robust FSM-based parser by hand in a couple of hours).
CSS and XSL-FO serve different purposes. You can apply an XSL-FO to any XHTML or XML document in the same way CSS can; it's just that CSS handles pretty much everything whereas XSL-FO is more of a 'roll-your-own' and seems geared towards fixed-format printing,
whereas CSS supports many different media types with different methods of rendering (e.g. paged or continous).
Thread Closed
This thread is kinda stale and has been closed but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums,
or Contact Us and let us know.