Chris Hoess wrote: >> Well, "I read" that exactly there. Those discussions always were on a >> practical level, but I wonder why the W3C creates a 400-pages >> standard although the two Big Browsers won't support it. Maybe the >> XSLFO creators should have asked _before_? :-) > > Well, XSL:FO is (IMO) more suitable for documents destined for printed > rendering and complex typography than for the WWW, which is accessed by a > variety of user agents with very different capabilities. This has been > clearly recognized by the W3C with its work on "profiles", mobile devices, > etc. XSL:FO largely exists (as I understand it) because designers for > printed media found CSS lacking in precise typographical and layout > capability. OTOH, the CSS recommendation is written to allow the > flexibility necessary for WWW design. > >>> Then there's the question of what XSL-FO provides that XML+CSS (and >>> possibly XSLT, which mozilla supports) doesn't. >> >> Granted, but one argument more to delete one of them from the W3C >> home page. > > See above. CSS works best for the WWW, where content presentation tends > to be flexible; XSL:FO is leveled at publishing/"dead trees".
Why would the World Wide Web Consortium make something not intended to be used on the World Wide Web?? -- /Jonas
