Subject: RE: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists as tables) From: Linda van den Brink <lvdbrink@xxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:44:32 +0200 |
>It sounds like no one's really happy. So let those who want powerful FO >vocabularies migrate to DSSSL, and those who can cope with a Web-centric >vocabulary stick around with XSLT and CSS. This reminds me of an Omnimark consultant (we're going to use Omnimark for conversion) who, when I asked him if I could use Omnimark to convert XML to PDF, suggested that maybe I would be better off using DSSSL. I have no difficulty believing him, because DSSSL is strong both in transformation and in formatting. It's ideal to have one language capable of both. I played around with DSSSL for a while, but then XSL (before it was split into XSLT and XSL-FO) showed up as the language that could do both transformation and formatting on the Web as well as for printed media. Even more ideal, I'd say! It looks to me as though XSL is threatened by both the capabilities of DSSSL and of CSS. Each of them have their domain, for which they seem best suited when compared to XSL. These domains, however, should not be separate - think of one source, multiple output situations. XSL could be the bridge between them: if it is allowed to grow into a transformation + formatting language, for both online and printed media. jmt Linda XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists , Rick Geimer | Thread | RE: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists , Reynolds, Gregg |
Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists , Steve Schafer | Date | Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists , Sebastian Rahtz |
Month |