Re: [xsl] Prince XML vs Docbook

["Charles O'Connor coconnor@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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 ()