Subject: RE: The XSL-List Digest V2 #146 From: Linda van den Brink <lvdbrink@xxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 10:52:35 +0200 |
Dave Pawson wrote: "Not 'hard' publishing, but hard enough for my small brain. Or is that just contradicting Michael again, XSL is for the clever? sorry, I'm not clever, it took me a whole week before I had covered (enough for my needs) XSLT. About the same time as it took me to get my head around Omnimark." Don't underestimate yourself: According to Mr Leventhal you *are* clever. It took me about a week to cover XSL as well, and Mr. Leventhal said I must be clever. (I don't know if he meant it as a compliment though :-) -----Original Message----- From: Dave Pawson [mailto:dave.pawson@xxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 1999 11:07 PM To: xsl list Subject: Re: The XSL-List Digest V2 #146 From: Kurt Donath <kurt.donath@xxxxxxxx> Subject: XSL-FO Does it have the guts? <quote> In Leventhal's critic of XSL on xml.com, one of his first arguments against XSL is that it provides flow objects that don't make sense on the web, such as page flow objects. Then he says that the number of people who will be publishing to more than one media (paper and web) will be small in number, and they can easily pick up existing standards: CSS, and DSSSL to do that kind of publishing. He later goes onto state: "I am qualified to give an expert opinion in this area and my opinion is that DSSSL and XSL are hard!" Since I am not an expert in formatting/transformation languages, I'm trying to validate this claim. I buy into the *concept* that XSL will be able to publish to more than one media with the same source and formatting language, and I think Leventhal misses the point that XML is all about looking beyond the web. Does the set of flow objects currently in the XSL spec have enough power for publishing? On the continuum from 'easy' to 'hard' publishing jobs, what will XSL be able to address? </quote> For my customers it has a fighting chance. Large Print? [My definition goes from clear at 12pt to large at 24pt], yes - today via fop, tomorrow via ....? Sebastians FOTeX? HTML for the web, Yep. ASCII Text on disk, Yep, again via fo or XSLT. Braille, Yep, via the java interface, then with fo's to format. Moon, Yep, via fo's. Audio, Yep, via XSLT to text and synth voice. Not 'hard' publishing, but hard enough for my small brain. Or is that just contradicting Michael again, XSL is for the clever? sorry, I'm not clever, it took me a whole week before I had covered (enough for my needs) XSLT. About the same time as it took me to get my head around Omnimark. Also wholly client side, I wouldn't know a server if it bit me, never mind programming one. Or perhaps my customers don't count to M Leventhal, being a minority? Some of us want multi-media. Some of us need other than the web as deliverables. James T described it as being <quote>beyond the web</quote>. Nice expression. DaveP XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: The XSL-List Digest V2 #146, James Tauber | Thread | Re: XSL FO to DVi (Was RE: XSL-FO D, James Tauber |
Re: XSL FO to DVi (Was RE: XSL-FO D, David Carlisle | Date | Re: XSL FO to DVi (Was RE: XSL-FO D, Sebastian Rahtz |
Month |