Subject: Re: Venting 2 From: Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 22:57:28 -0600 |
Chris Lilley wrote: > > FO isn't a "language" unless you also consider HTML, DocBook, etc to to > be langauges. FO isn't a language because it is not defined that way. HTML and DocBook are languages because they are defined in that way (i.e. in terms of characters in a sequence). > Its an XSML namespace, though. It should be possible to > write a DTD or other schema for it. I don't se it being "implicit" in > the XSL spec, it seems quite explicit to me. The formatting object *language* is implicit. It is defined in terms of a tree, not in terms of a set of legal character sequences. There is no provision for an XSL processor of any sort to take a stream of <fo:foo> elements as an XML stream and display them without first applying a stylesheet (at least the identity stylesheet). > That software is called a formatter. If the software that generates the > FOs is also the software that consumes them, then it makes no sense to > write out the FOs to a file. If the formatter is on a different computer > than the software that generated the FOs - for exampl, if the formatter > is in a printer - then it does make sense to serialise it out. The XSL specification does not define a software component called a formatter. There is a single monolithic beast called an "XSL Processor." That's what I am complaining about. Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco "Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did, but she did it backwards and in high heels." --Faith Whittlesey XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Venting 2, Chris Lilley | Thread | How to: numbers in html links, Volker Turau |
RE: Venting, Didier PH Martin | Date | Re: About Microsoft Patent, Paul Prescod |
Month |