Subject: Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful From: "Scott S. Lawton" <ssl@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sat, 17 Apr 1999 13:50:57 -0400 |
>The people who publish PDF on the Web today aren't to my mind any >differently motivated than those who publish Excel spreadsheets on the Web.' >So I guess my main question is still, WHY would someone want to build >documents in an FO-only way? I still think this is a straw-man argument Jumping in: I apologize if I misunderstand your argument, but doesn't PDF (and, from UNIX folks, raw postscript files) show that it isn't a straw-man argument? What if QuarkXPress, MS Word, Adobe InDesign/Illustrator, Corel Draw et al output FOs -- I would guess that it's much easier for them to output yet another visual rendition than to remake themselves for structured authoring. And, wouldn't that be easier for "typical" document creators than XML+formatting? Authoring in pure WYSIWYG is popular because (for many types of documents) it's easier than the alternatives. Creating structured content suitable for multiple forms/renditions is lots of work. Very worthwhile in many cases, but still lots of work. ... I'm strongly in favor splitting "XSL" into a "pure" transformation language plus something else. CSS1/2/3 are much farther along than FOs, and it does seem strange for W3C to have two formatting efforts underway. One of the many advantages of creating a distinct "XTL" is that the CSS vs. FO tradeoffs could be addressed head on, without the distraction of transformation issues. cheers, -- SSL, PreFab Software <http://www.prefab.com/> XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Formatting Objects considered h, John E. Simpson | Thread | Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Lars Marius Garshol |
RE: Formatting Objects considered h, John E. Simpson | Date | Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Liam R. E. Quin |
Month |