Sebastian Rahtz wrote:

> what has always amazed me, as an observer, is who the great defenders
> of CSS are. it is quite recent, 

1996 is not that recent in Web terms

> it has never been fully implemented,

It has been implemented in substantial part by several companies
including Netscape, Microsoft, SoftQuad, Silicon Graphics, Macromedia
and Opera (plus other partial or specialised implementations). I don't
recall seeing six independent implementations of any other style sheet
language, nor do I recall ever seeing a full implementation of FOSI (I
don't believe Adept implemented every last thing) nor of DSSSL.

> and it is agree by all parties to be a nasty hack. its a sort of orc,

You are more persuasive when you stick to arguments on technical merit. 

> so far as one see. So why, when XML and XSL come along, is it not
> allowed to die an honourable death? where are these millions of users?
> when did you last see a web page using CSS? 

That depends - were you using a browser that supported CSS when you went
looking? The servers can tell, you know.

> i'd suggest, were I
> cynical, that the W3C peeps are reluctant to admit they bore a pup,
> but then Chris Lilley would shout at me.

Only if you made a factually incorrect statement.  But I am certtainly
reluctant to call CSS a pup. Unless you consider a pup to be something
small, freindly and full of potential.

--
Chris


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list