Subject: Re: Venting From: Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 13:37:48 -0600 |
Marcus Groeber wrote: > > Of course, having both in one rec would increase the pressure on browser > makers to implement FOs in order to be able to claim "100% compliance". If there were XTL and XSL, then browser vendors would feel pressured to implement *XSL*. With the transformation part removed the only meaningful definition of "XSL" would be the application of that transformation language to flow objects. Implementing "XSL" without the flow objects would be an oxymoron: there would *be* no such thing as XSL without flow objects. Now if Microsoft claimed to only support XTL and not XSL then we would have a much clearer picture of what they will and will not support than today when the definition of "XSL" is very vague (because of all of the half-implementations). > I could even see FOs getting a life of their own as an XML-based page > description language that doesn't necessarily have to be generated by > XSL transformation at all. Not sure if this is really a good thing > because it would have a lot of overlap with things like PDF, TeX or RTF > (then again, none of these can be generated directly through XSL), but > splitting the two would open up that possibility to "the market" as > well. I agree, and I don't see anything wrong with it at all. Also, if the FO's were split off it would be easier to see exactly what they do or do not provide beyond what HTML and CSS provide today. I must admit that I'm relatively agnostic on this fo: vs. HTML issue. How does the world come crashing to a halt if we spell <fo:block align="center"> as <P align="center">. Isn't it the sophistication of the *formatting model* that matters? -- 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, Marcus Groeber | Thread | Re: Venting, Don Park |
Re: About Microsoft Patent, Tyler Baker | Date | Re: no parent??, Mattias Konradsson |
Month |