Re: [xsl] xsl 2.0?

[Toshihiko Makita <tmakita@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Liam Quin,

Thank you for your reply.

Your comment referred to the company Antenna House. Your description may
be true.
For your understanding I am only a application developer and I am not
concerned to actual development of Antenna House Formatter.
All of my questions or opinions are personal and they does not represent
the intention of company.

>Several major book publishers are using CSS-like solutions - including
Antenna House's, which adds some 200 custom properties that are not
really part of CSS, >and including YesLogic's PrinceXML formatter which
is more limited in some ways but handles XML, not just XHTML, and
supports OpenType.
>There's a lot of pressure on CSS and on browser vendors from ebook
publishers (and ebook user communities), so the CSS Working Group
participants are >starting to take what they call paged media much more
seriously.

Yes, I know that several publishers like O'Reilly has moved from XSL-FO
to CSS. And eBook publisher will have lots of requests for CSS because
epub stand on the HTML5 technology. However I have basic question. What
is the *MOST* fundamental benefit of CSS technology comparing XSL-FO in
paged media?

If an paper media and eBook media coexists for the moment, is CSS most
suitable for this situation?

I have been engaged developing stylesheets that converts various XML
documents into XSL-FO. I know that there are many challenges left in
automatic document formatting world. So I think it is not a good news
for the XSL-FO users that W3C stop developing XSL2.0.

Regards,


(2013/11/02 1:48), Liam R E Quin wrote:
> Subject: 	Re: [xsl] xsl 2.0?
> <http://markmail.org/message/wmgz75gi2peqhplk> 	permalink
> <http://markmail.org/message/wmgz75gi2peqhplk>
> From: 	Liam R E Quin (li...@xxxxxx)
> Date: 	Nov 2, 2013 1:48:29 am
> List: 	com.mulberrytech.lists.xsl-list
>
> On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 16:23 +0900, Toshihiko Makita wrote:
>
> 1. Did W3C determine to discontinue developing XSL-FO 2.0 for the
> feature? 2. What is the main cause that XSL-FO 2.0
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-xslfo20-20120117/) has been failed?
>
> We have closed the Working Group because not enough people were taking
> part.
>
> We do know that users were requesting new features. I was told
> afterwards that Antenna House has implemented some of the 2.0 draft
> features - their customers really wanted them. But none of the
> commercial XSL-FO implementers were coming to meetings. I understand
> in the case of Antenna House that there were/are language
> difficulties, of course.
>
> A W3C specification must have multiple implementations to become a
> Recommendation, and it wasn't clear that would ever happen for XSL-FO
> 2.0.
>
> 3. I beleive that XSL-FO is most suitable techinology for formatting
> XML documents. Does CSS techinology become the complete alternative of
> the XSL-FO?
>
> No, as Dave Pawson said, not yet.
>
> But CSS is changing very fast.
>
> Several major book publishers are using CSS-like solutions - including
> Antenna House's, which adds some 200 custom properties that are not
> really part of CSS, and including YesLogic's PrinceXML formatter which
> is more limited in some ways but handles XML, not just XHTML, and
> supports OpenType.
>
> There's a lot of pressure on CSS and on browser vendors from ebook
> publishers (and ebook user communities), so the CSS Working Group
> participants are starting to take what they call paged media much more
> seriously.
>
> There's also increased activity within the Member-only part of W3C,
> especially in the new digital publishing activity (www.w3.org/dpub).
>
> Liam
>
> -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
> Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh:
> irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
>
> --~------------------------------------------------------------------
> XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list To
> unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/ or e-mail:
> <mailto:xsl-...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> --~--
>
>
>
>

-- 
/*--------------------------------------------------
 Toshihiko Makita
 Development Group. Antenna House, Inc. Ina Branch
 E-Mail tmakita@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 8077-1 Horikita Minamiminowa Vil. Kamiina Co.
 Nagano Pref. 399-4511 Japan
 Tel +81-265-76-9300 Fax +81-265-78-1668
 Web site:
 http://www.antenna.co.jp/
 http://www.antennahouse.com/
 --------------------------------------------------*/