Talk:Comparison of stylesheet languages

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

I'm not really sure what the purpose of this page is. It basically just talks (very shortly) about the history of CSS and XSL.

At reversion 2010-11-12 the paragraph that starts " CSS, as of version 2.1, is best used for styling documents that are to be shown on "screen media". " wronged. truth is that the language to structure a document (markup language) limits document to a media. for example HTML may style at 'screen media' best, but the fault is lack parsers to transform a code CSS to a width. Other languages to struct document, example XUL " The XUL box model is a significant imporvement over the HTML layout model, which is mostly vertical. " from https://developer.mozilla.org/en/XUL_School —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjfs (talk • contribs) 04:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The markup language used for a document does not limit it to a particular medium. I write pretty much every non-trivial document in DocBook, and there are perfectly capable transforms that allow it to be the source for book media or screen media. Or eBook media. And so on. If you wanted, you could write a transform from DocBook to XUL.

Also, the reason why CSS is best suited for screen media has nothing to do with transforming CSS to a width. It has to do with the lack of structures needed for pages. It has no way to deal with forced page breaks, page references (referring to an item on page X), headers/footers/footnotes, and any number of other things that paged media styling fundamentally relies upon. There is work in CSS 3.0 to improve paged media handling, but this is still in development. Korval (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]