Subject: Re: Jade/DSSSL future From: "James Tauber" <jtauber@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 30 May 1999 10:38:45 +0800 |
> The probability to have XSLFO is very very low. We are not working on > it. This is too much work to reconcile CSS objects and XSLFO objects. I don't see why it would be. Most of the XSL flow objects in the current draft are very similar to their CSS counterparts. I would have imagined that the harder parts of rendering CSS objects would be those parts relating to formatting in general, independent of whether CSS or XSL flow objects are being used, so it would be relatively easy to drive the rendering engine with XSL FOs as well as CSS FOs. Admittedly, the functionality of XSL FOs will exceed CSS FOs in later drafts, but I don't see there being any great reconciliation effort needed by implementors. The XSL WG is doing that work for you. JamesT DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Jade/DSSSL future, Didier PH Martin | Thread | RE: Jade/DSSSL future, Didier PH Martin |
XSLT syntax, Daniel Mahler | Date | RE: XSLT syntax, Didier PH Martin |
Month |