Comments on html 3.0 draft

Dan Connolly (
Mon, 24 Apr 95 08:53:05 EDT

Dan Oscarsson writes:
> Style sheets
> -------------
> I have looked at DSSSL Lite. I recommend that DSSSL Lite is not
> used. It is not easy enough to use.

"Easy to use" is very subjective. Would you care to present some evidence?

It's pretty early in the game to condemn DSSSL. What if, in a month or
two, there were a freely available point-and-click stylesheet editor
that supported DSSSL-Lite? OK, so that's a little far-fetched. But
I'll bet commercially supported point-and-click DSSSL-Lite editors
will be out in the next few months. And there will be an emacs editing
mode (or two). Folks will figure it out. Just like HTML.

One could argue that DSSSL-Lite is overly complex. I'd like to see
such arguments. I spent some time convincing myself (read: writing
some code) that DSSSL-Lite isn't too hairy to parse and render. I've
seen several stylesheet implementations that are doing what DSSSL-Lite
specifies, but using a different syntax. Now if there were some
stylesheet idioms that you expect to be common that are awkward to
represent in DSSSL-Lite, we should discuss those. It's still early
enough in the game to get DSSSL-Lite revised, I suspect.