Re: DOCBOOK-APPS: Rely on CSS?

[Dave Pawson <dpawson at nildram dot co dot uk>]

At 08:34 21/01/2003 -0600, Paul Grosso wrote:

> And it means you can no longer just send a single file to some
> recipient and have them view the result in a browser.  You have
> to solve the packaging problem.
Yes Paul, I was hoping to bypass that one, but it is very real.
W3C doesn't seem to be able to keep hold of any packaging work does it.



> I'm exaggerating a bit (I like clean HTML too), but the point
> is still there.  Using some embedded CSS seems perfectly reasonable
> when you're creating output (as opposed to the authoritative source).
Glance at the WAI stuff at W3C Paul.
Your embedded CSS can totally screw my ability to read content
with my own CSS settings or basic IE 'make it bigger' settings.
In my case its tiny text that I can't change, I find it really annoying.


> I'd say our advantages accrue from the fact that we are using DocBook
> XML for our source.  The CSS+HTML is the output, not the source.  As
> output, its raison d'etre is to present well.  (Yes, this includes
> being accessible, but use of the style attribute doesn't prevent this.)
That's what's puzzling me.
If the html output from the XSLT is pretty clean, with good class usage,
surely its then down to the end user to use or not a CSS stylesheet?

regards DaveP