Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Jesper Tverskov wrote: >> None of these are impossible barriers. XML just never achieved the momentum >> in this space to make them worth climbing. > > I don't thing that is the full explanation. When looking back, I find > it incredible to believe, that many of us once thought that "XML > Browsing", meaning CSS styled homegrown XML, was a promising road to > follow for webpages. I don't find it that incredible, but then I was fond of CSS and looking for a path out of tag soup. > I believe that I'm pretty good at CSS, but I have not the slightest > idea of how I could style some XML to create a table with rows and > columns, collspan, borders and shades, table headers, tbody, etc. Nor > do I have the desire to solve such problems. Next time around with > some other XML, I should reinvent the wheel one more time? Should all > web developers really work like that, when it is easy to transform XML > not made for display into XHTML made to make display easy? I've never found the display properties to be that difficult, but then I rarely work with the kinds of tables that make designers crazy. (CALS table models anyone?) If only IE bothered to support them... Colspan is the only piece I see in your list that actually looks difficult, and I suspect that's mostly because I haven't kept up with the latest in CSS. I don't find CSS reuse particularly difficult, even with changing vocabularies, either, though again, I rarely tread into intensely detailed layouts. On the other hand, I've never called XSLT 'easy', even with excellent training. -- Simon St.Laurent http://simonstl.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
