• From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>
• To: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
• Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:28:44 +1000

Costello, Roger L. wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> CSS does not use the XML syntax.  Why not?
>   
Cause it had to fit into attribute values?
> Is there something about CSS that makes its current syntax better
> suited than the XML syntax?
>   
It can fit into attribute values.  Terser. Looks more C/INI -like.
> In general, when should the XML syntax be used, and when should it not
> be used?
>   
At some point down the foodchain, structure becomes unimportant and 
impliable.

For example, in CSS what do { and } mean (i.e. what name would we give 
them in an XML version?)  The answer: who cares!  No name is best 
because its name would just be some indication that it groups and { 
conveys it just as well.

I think when you have a change in domain, it is natural to have a change 
in notation. 

And when there is already an extablished notation, having XML carving 
doesn't give much benefit.

The same its true for explaining microformats too: needed in attributes, 
uninteresting regular structure, change in domain from other data 
content of document, ?use of established notations?

Why CSS? Why not URLs too?

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: CSS does not use the XML syntax. Why not?
    • From: Thomas Lord <lord@e...>

• References:
  • CSS does not use the XML syntax. Why not?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>