Subject: Re: Venting 2 From: Chris Lilley <chris@xxxxxx> Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 01:36:56 +0100 |
Paul Prescod wrote: > Anyhow my real point for this second venting is that the fact that the > formatting language is not officially specified *as a language* means that > tools like FOP are in a standardization grey zone. They take in a language > implicitly, not explicitly described in XSL and convert it into a > rendition. FO isn't a "language" unless you also consider HTML, DocBook, etc to to be langauges. Its an XSML namespace, though. It should be possible to write a DTD or other schema for it. I don't se it being "implicit" in the XSL spec, it seems quite explicit to me. > > Practically speaking we can infer a correct behavior for the > specification, but technically speaking there is no provision for the FO > output of an XSL processor being the input for any other type of software. The processor is not required to serialise the FO - to write it out to a file (it can, but itr need not). That is not the same thing > That software has no official standing. That software is called a formatter. If the software that generates the FOs is also the software that consumes them, then it makes no sense to write out the FOs to a file. If the formatter is on a different computer than the software that generated the FOs - for exampl, if the formatter is in a printer - then it does make sense to serialise it out. -- Chris XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Venting 2, Paul Prescod | Thread | Re: Venting 2, Paul Prescod |
Re: Venting, Chris Lilley | Date | Re: Venting, Chris Lilley |
Month |