Subject: Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful From: Paul Prescod <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 11:46:06 -0500 |
"John E. Simpson" wrote: > > At 09:38 AM 4/18/99 -0500, Paul Prescod wrote: > >So XFOTs have all of the costs and benefits of PDF -- except that XFOTs do > >*not* require a plugin because their implementation is mandated by the > >W3C. This is exactly Håkon's point: we are making it easier to use a > >PDF-like language by mandating the implementation of a PDF-like language. > >The "tools for easily creating that content" will presumably appear for > >the same reason that tools for creating PDF exist. > > But if a hypothetical tool vendor implemented semantics-free PDF-like FOs > *without* the transformational component of XSL, wouldn't that depart from > the W3C's "mandate"? (My reading of the XSL DTD says that an FO requires a > transformational parent and can't be used on its own.) We're talking about on the *generation* side. The XSL-WD does not and cannot say that it is illegal to generate semantics-less FOs and attach a stylesheet that does nothing except copy elements from the input to the output verbatim. We could restrict the XSL features that make copying easy but we cannot stop someone from making a stylesheet that maps MYFO:BLOCK to FO:BLOCK "manually". Once they've written that stylesheet (less than half day's work) they don't have to worry about structure any more. Quark or MSWord can generate the FO's more-or-less "directly" -- which is much easier than reimplementing in terms of structure. -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco "The Excursion [Sport Utility Vehicle] is so large that it will come equipped with adjustable pedals to fit smaller drivers and sensor devices that warn the driver when he or she is about to back into a Toyota or some other object." -- Dallas Morning News XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Scott S. Lawton | Thread | Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Håkon Wium Lie |
Re: Formatting Objects considered h, Paul Prescod | Date | RE: Bugs?, Edas Pazera |
Month |