Re: foo ... bar Re: Q: XML+XSL transforms to a print-ready format

["Sebastian Rahtz" <sebastian.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul Tchistopolskii writes:

 > layouts. I agree  - MS Word may be less powerful than a 'typical
 > day-to-day formatter' ( even I still don't  understand  what is 
 > 'typical day-to-day formatter', because nobody was presize enough 

Can we stop using this term, and use Framemaker as a better
reference. do Framemaker users agree that it can format variable
running heads?


 > I understand. It is a real problem. XSL does not support 'running heads'.
 > It supports just a page number.  You even can not assign the different 
 > page number to each part of the page when you are printing it in a 
 > landscape orinetation.

can you elaborate on this? I don't have a clear idea in my head of
the specification here, which XSL FO does not allow. it sounds interesting.


 > I actualy see no answer to this question except  "because W3C has not 
 > specified it in the latest draft and it'l take maybe a year to get
 > it specified".
 > So everything is fine and it appears that  the MS way with XML ( "take a 
 > basics. Make it work. Use your namespace for the rest" ) is the only 
 > possible way you have if you want something working today.

I don't disagree with this. But it does seem silly to have to 
extend XSL FO before it even exists. I currently (as you know) have an 
extension to specify Acrobat bookmarks, but I was told that provision
for it would be in the final spec. 

If the WG say about running heads "don't worry your pretty heads,
we'll put in something to solve the problem", that'll do just fine. If
they say "sorry, its beyond the scope of XSL FO", thats also fine (but
a pity), I am not forced to use XSL FO. BUT if they say, "traditional
book layouts are within our remit, but we cannot work out a spec
because we want to get the proposal out before Christmas", then I cry
"shame on you!". Bringing out an incomplete XSL FO (_according to its
own spec_) would be a disaster (in my opinion).

I'd be glad to hear a view from someone who is on the XSL FO WG ....

 > Maybe some day I'l find an xml input with PDF output rendered by 
 > some 'typical day-to-day formatter',  to play with it, 
 > just to show  that it is not 
 > a big deal to create similiar proprietary solution with  XSL FO based 
 > renderx engine.
I'll make you a plain example with running heads in a moment.

 >  As well as I'l be glad to get the xml imput + PDF output from 
 > any proprietary package with the example of 'realy complex table'.
I'll work on that too. well, `moderately complex', anyway.

Sebastian


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list