<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: XML: CSS and XSL</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.itcserver.com/blog/2005/03/16/xml-css-and-xsl/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.itcserver.com/blog/2005/03/16/xml-css-and-xsl/</link>
	<description>The SAP Consultant's Journey</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 09:58:38 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Joseph Yi</title>
		<link>http://www.itcserver.com/blog/2005/03/16/xml-css-and-xsl/#comment-8</link>
		<dc:creator>Joseph Yi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Feb 2006 04:36:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.itcserver.com/blog/2005/03/16/xml-css-and-xsl/#comment-8</guid>
		<description>XSL should be limited in usage to transform XML to another DTD/schema/format (i.e. HTML, FOP, CSV), and in the case of HTML, I recommend that nothing be defined in terms of layout/style since that is what CSS is for. There are browser compatibility issues doing client side XSL transforms so neither serve as magic bullets. However, having used both technologies for many years, the best solution is to perform server side XML/XSL transformations and render HTML that will use CSS. You should check out http://www.csszengarden.com/ for a proof of concept example (if you haven't already, anyway). In theory, the HTML they use could have been XML transformed by an XSL stylesheet. Anyway, I'd recommend using XSL sparingly in general. Isolate what you consider as 'data' that you anticipate requiring multiple data formats and use CSS liberally for HTML layout and style. They should be viewed as complimentary technologies, not competing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>XSL should be limited in usage to transform XML to another DTD/schema/format (i.e. HTML, FOP, CSV), and in the case of HTML, I recommend that nothing be defined in terms of layout/style since that is what CSS is for. There are browser compatibility issues doing client side XSL transforms so neither serve as magic bullets. However, having used both technologies for many years, the best solution is to perform server side XML/XSL transformations and render HTML that will use CSS. You should check out <a href="http://www.csszengarden.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.csszengarden.com/</a> for a proof of concept example (if you haven&#8217;t already, anyway). In theory, the HTML they use could have been XML transformed by an XSL stylesheet. Anyway, I&#8217;d recommend using XSL sparingly in general. Isolate what you consider as &#8216;data&#8217; that you anticipate requiring multiple data formats and use CSS liberally for HTML layout and style. They should be viewed as complimentary technologies, not competing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

