Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
me> you need _something_ unless your XML is so close to HTML that CSS me> can be used. > Why? Seems to me that as long as you don't need to reorder things, CSS > should do the job. yes exactly, that's what I meant. If your table model is so close to the CSS/HTML table model that you can get tables just by decorating elements with CSS table properties then effectively your tables are html tables, with possibly different element names. as soon as you come to some other table model (cals being an obvious culprit) which has (at least) different semantics for spanning specifications, then you are going to need re-odering. Similarly for linking. Either your XML exactly follows the structure of xlink (or, in Opera, clink and you decorate it with CSS), or it doesn't. And in the latter case you need to transform it to some linking the browser does understand. (eg html a) I really don't mean to bash CSS or Opera as CSS has its uses, and Opera is a really nice implementation of what they chose to implement. But rendering generic markup has _always_ needed a transformation language, and XML does not change that. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
|
