This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
RE: XSL stylesheet for XHTML
- From: "Chris Bayes" <chris at bayes dot co dot uk>
- To: <xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 23:09:15 -0000
- Subject: RE: [xsl] XSL stylesheet for XHTML
- Reply-to: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
Well true but why not? But a *good* presentational thing might be ok for
some things. I don't need to know that it was once an H1 if it has <span
style="font-size 24pt". I was just musing. If you can go one way then
why not the other?
Ciao Chris
XML/XSL Portal
http://www.bayes.co.uk/xml
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-xsl-list@lists.mulberrytech.com
> [mailto:owner-xsl-list@lists.mulberrytech.com] On Behalf Of
> sebastian.rahtz@computing-services.oxford.ac.uk
> Sent: 22 November 2001 22:44
> To: xsl-list@lists.mulberrytech.com
> Subject: RE: [xsl] XSL stylesheet for XHTML
>
>
> Chris Bayes writes:
> > Maybe I'm wrong here but is there something that goes the
> other way? It > might be cool to go to fo then reverse it
> back to html to produce a html > slide/page thingy sort of
> thing. Just a thought.
>
> but consider the fact that an original <h1>foo</h1> will be
> translated to an anonymous <fo:block>, with no means of
> knowing its once high and mighty status. even if fo had a
> container for this info, its unlikely to be used reliably.
>
> so you'll not get back *good* HTML from FO. just purely
> presentational. that may be ok, but geez, what for?
>
> Sebastian
>
>
> XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
>
>
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list