Hi Eliot --
On Jan 18, 2018, at 10:54 AM, Eliot Kimber ekimber(_at_)contrext(_dot_)com
<xsl-list-service(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com> wrote:
However, CSS is so much easier to work with and is so much more accepted that
the cost in functionality and spec fuzziness is far outweighed by the ability
to use less-specialized personnel to do the styling work.
Actually, I see it a bit differently. CSS is “perceived” to be easier to work
with, and people who CLAIM CSS expertise are far easier to find and hire.
However, CSS for print is no easier to work with than FO, and most people hired
for their CSS expertise find that they need to learn a lot in order to make
even reasonable quality pages using CSS.
I have been recommending that many users adopt the CSS to print approach not
because it is better (it is not), or because it is easier (it is not), or
because you need less specialize skills to do it (you do not), but because it
is more palatable in the marketplace because it is easier to evolve the skilled
personnel needed from people with a related skill (CSS for soft display).
— Tommie
======================================================================
B. Tommie Usdin
mailto:btusdin(_at_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
Mulberry Technologies, Inc. http://www.mulberrytech.com
17 West Jefferson Street Phone: 301/315-9631
Suite 207 Direct Line: 301/315-9634
Rockville, MD 20850 Fax: 301/315-8285
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mulberry Technologies: A Consultancy Specializing in XML and SGML
======================================================================
--~----------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
EasyUnsubscribe: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/unsub/xsl-list/1167547
or by email: xsl-list-unsub(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
--~--