Re: About the style processing instruction

[Matthieu DELAHAYE <delahaym@xxxxxxxx>]

[...]

> NO Oren you are not missing something you got it right. However, you can
> have this operation done automatically. An intelligent browser may know that
> you have a Tex backend that can render FOs as asked by the PI. If the
> browser is even more better, it can also let the user set preferences like
> saying "I always want my FOs displayed with that ... backend" (of course in
> a more user friendly way). This choice would overwrite the document creator
> choice. So, the document creator could ask for a certain backend to render
> FOs (maybe because a certain backend offer better rendering quality for his
> kind of document). The user can overwrite that by specifying that everything
> is displayed by only a certain type of backend and finally this choice could
> be also imposed by browser limitation. The best situation would be that a
> browser can render with a diversity of backbends, this until we have a
> common spec for rendering language or rendering engine.

First, I hope you will understand my english (excuse me!).
 
Don't you think that the best situation you discribe here would be
possible if 
each different backend could be define externally. I explain: I suppose
that we could
consider a FO document as a XML document. If it is possible to write a
XSL ss like
"FO document to TeX document" which translate all FO to a specific
backend, thus,
any new backend could be added to any browser. This need two XSL 
process "work" (one for PI given by the XSL ss author, and one another
for the PI about
 the FO translation).
Perhaps I've made a mistake by considering a FO document like a XML
document, or perhaps 
this already exist and in this case excuse me. In the contrary, this
could be a solution.
What do you think?

		Matthieu DELAHAYE      
-- 
"The only corporate defense against rationality is bureaucracy."
-- anon


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