> Note I'm not arguing for a change in CSS, that is already out in the
 > field and changing the syntax now probably is not worth it, but I do
 > not really see that for an XMl based system `compatibility with CSS'
 > has to mean reproduction of the exact syntax of these composite values.

hear hear! Compatibility with CSS concepts and names --- great. Slavish
compatibility with CSS shortcuts --- misguided interpretation of the
mandate.

XSL FOs are so verbose already that expansion of a few attribute values
probably does not buy very much.

Sebastian


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