> So what one is left with is radical overengineering, ie., having a whole
> raft of CSS spec to reinvent the wheel of all your basic FOs... I still
> don't see this as an easy option.

The reality is that many people have learned CSS, there are many tools that 
work with CSS, and in all, the shortest path from the current HTML+CSS chaos 
to proper structure/style separation is though XML+CSS.  XTL is a very 
separate concern.  FOs are a good eventual aim, but they will be longer in 
development, and IMO, should be a separate consideration.  I also happen to 
think that it is important not to rush the development of FOs, and counting 
them as separate, with a longer release horizon will be good for all.  In the 
meantime, XTL is almost ready to go, and doesn't have the same obstacles to 
development, being most likely a server-side technology.

> I have played with XML+CSS in IE5, and while it's useful with maybe IE5
> behaviours for producing "widgets" (I produced a collapsable navigation
> menu, from XML data), I'm not overly enamoured at the prospect of complex
> rendering using this approach. I appreciate others may differ, but I'm sure
> that print designers wont like being told XML+CSS is the solution they
> should adopt.

Yes, but as Mr. Martin already pointed out to you, DSSSL fills that niche 
quite handily.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji
FourThought LLC, IT Consultants
uche.ogbuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx	(970)481-0805
Software engineering, project management, Intranets and Extranets
http://FourThought.com		http://OpenTechnology.org



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