Re: foo ... bar Re: Q: XML+XSL transforms to a print-ready format

["James Tauber" <jtauber@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> On the other hand we have a number of folks who quite evidently *do* have
> up-to-the-eyeballs experience with what I would think are 'typical
> day-to-day' formatting & publishing problems. (And not inconsiderable
> experience on the implementation side as well, i.e., with TeX, FOP, etc.)

I should stress that I myself am not a typesetter (with the exception of my
1994 book). However, for two years I managed the publishing section at a
university and tried to introduce SGML to people who had been typesetting
for more years than I have lived! One soon develops an appreciation. (I had
editorial staff too and the same applies to them).

> In the present case, the fact that Paul can look at a bunch of books and
not
> see 'running headers' is disturbing.

I am sure this is a matter of terminology (or maybe they were all novels).
It didn't help that I misleadingly typed "headings" instead of "headers"
throughout one post (I claim sleep deprivation from working on FOP :-)

> However, I'm also disturbed to hear that the XSL spec does not support
running headers.

Yet! I would like to think that 1.0 is just the beginning.

And in the interim, I will probably support them via a proprietary
formatting object.

> This functionality, I think, is fundamental not just to book production
but to any serious
> document output formatting solution.

Personally, I agree.

James


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list