Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists as tables)

["James Tauber" <jtauber@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Funny thing.  I always expected the XSL community's initial hostility to
> CSS and failure to build bridges early on to be the reason why XSL FO
> failed to take off.

What makes you think it wasn't the other way around?

> The later decision to reconcile the two specs may have muddied
> the waters for XSL, but I suspect it may have saved XSL FOs from becoming
> yet another different spec no one wanted to implement.

I am not aware of any implementers who wanted to implement XSL FOs more
because of reconciliation with CSS!

> But heck, I've already come to the conclusion that I'm 180 degrees away
> from Sebastian "nostradamus" Rahtz's postions, and probably at least 160
> degrees away from most of the people who find XSL FOs compelling.

In my experience, many of the people who find XSL FOs compelling are
typesetting specialists. Those typesetting specialists who have doubts about
XSL FOs seem to have even greater doubts about CSS.

James



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list