Subject: Re: [xsl] Prince XML vs Docbook From: "Charles O'Connor coconnor@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 15:56:53 -0000 |
I'm not as savvy as you folks, but having done some work with XML workflows in STM publishing, I see several factors that keep publishers from getting behind either FO or CSS solutions. First is an attachment to nearly un-automatable print-legacy layout: pages that have four or five elements that need to grow or shrink in relation to each other, 3-column ragged right pages in a journal with equations, all sorts of content that needs to go into footers and margins, footnotes that start on page 1 but, if too long, may continue in a space above the references. By the time you mention multi-pass processing, people have left the room. Second is lack of an easily editable intermediate format, both for problem solving and for tweaking. Someone with a few hours of experience in InDesign can break an equation or move a figure from page 3 to page 2, and they can do it in a few minutes. Solving the same problems in automated systems is more difficult and requires a rarer skill set. Third is the variability of input, which others have already mentioned, and how it interacts with the first two issues. That said, I've seen some dirt-simple layouts that still use 3B2 (or whatever it's called now). My impression is that publishers don't want to give up the safety net that cheap offshore typesetting gives them. -Charles ***************************************** From: Michael Kay mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 2:02 PM To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [xsl] Prince XML vs Docbook On 18 Jan 2018, at 17:06, Eliot Kimber mailto:ekimber@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Therebs no inherent reason CSS pagination has to be mediocre. B My observation is itbs another case of simply not having enough resources available to get the work done. I think you've just given the inherent reason. Getting the resources to do a high quality job for people with high-end requirements requires significant investment. Getting the resources to do a mediocre job (by which I mean, to satisfy the needs of those who aren't very fussy) is much easier. (I wasn't trying to suggest there's any architectural problem with a CSS-based solution. Just that the economics always favours meeting the 50% of the requirements that are enough to satisfy 90% of the users, and stopping there.) Michael Kay Saxonica http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list -list/2963104 ()
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Prince XML vs Docbook, Michael Kay mike@xxx | Thread | Re: [xsl] Prince XML vs Docbook, Michele R Combs mrro |
Re: [xsl] Prince XML vs Docbook, Eliot Kimber ekimber | Date | Re: [xsl] Prince XML vs Docbook, Michele R Combs mrro |
Month |