Subject: Re: XSL FOs -> PDF using InDesign From: James Robertson <jamesr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999 21:31:54 +1000 |
> But why would you want to: > > XML -> XSL -> XSL:FO -> MIF -> Frame -> PDF > > When you could just go: > > XML -> MIF -> Frame -> PDF
You are misleading people with the latter. The XML -> MIF stage needs to be done with something. In the former, it is done with XSLT + a tool for FO2MIF. In the latter you would use a programming language like Python, Perl or Omnimark.
Also, your example merges two orthogonal choices: XSLT versus Python/Perl/Omnimark and direct MIF versus MIF via FO. I know where you stand on the first issue, so factoring that out, the two choices are:
XML -> FO -> MIF
versus
XML -> MIF
The advantage of the former is that you can code a stylesheet that is independent of the fact your are outputting MIF. You could then have a whole range of backends: MIF, RTF, TeX, etc.
Your restating of the choices is certainly more illuminating that my original description.
However, what no-one has addressed is that to use the XML->FO->MIF route, you are limited to only those features that are supported by _both_ formats.
To be absolutely clear: you cannot use anything in MIF that is not defined in the FO. And you cannot use anything in the FO that cannot be implemented by Frame.
I would personally prefer to use a straight transformation tool (XSLT or Omnimark, Perl, etc), and avoid the limitations the FOs may impose.
------------------------- James Robertson Step Two Designs Pty Ltd SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy http://www.steptwo.com.au/ jamesr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Beyond the Idea" ACN 081 019 623
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XSL FOs -> PDF using InDesign, James Tauber | Thread | Re: XSL FOs -> PDF using InDesign, Sebastian Rahtz |
using XSL for Tree View, Ezhil Manavalan | Date | Re: OT: XML Server dream, Zvi Avraham |
Month |