Subject: Re: foo ... bar Re: Q: XML+XSL transforms to a print-ready format From: "Sebastian Rahtz" <sebastian.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:03:52 +0100 (BST) |
Paul Tchistopolskii writes: > The previous claim was : "XSL FO implementation > is weak because it can not render the "complex tables" > > So far the only presize example of 'what is complex tables?' > we got was a reference to http://www.nwalsh.com hang on, I never said Norm's tables were complex. I gave them as examples of tables to start off with. I cannot render them properly in PassiveTeX yet, so was curious to see RenderX do them. I don't have any complex tables marked up in XSL FO at present, but we could start with the famous "AT&T Common Stock" table, if you like. I'll try and put that in XML and make a stylesheet. > It all comes to the real situation with XML. > > Those who already have XML in place and who want their > XML-based framework to work - are more forgiving > to the XML renderer than those who have XML as a buzzword > on their web-site. I really do not know from where you derive this claim. *My* take on the situation is that we see the difference between people `trading down' from book typesetting systems (eg Arbortext, Framemaker, 3B2, LaTeX), and people `trading up' from Netscape. I badly want a standard formatting language to typeset my XML documents, but compromising on page formatting features is simply not an option. If I was currently using HTML + Netscape, and was offered something that does better, I'd no doubt accept it gladly. But I am not in that situation; to me, in my book-typesetting persona (I have others), XSL FO as it is proposed is interesting, but not a real option. > > Of course we'l take into account that there are also w > 'running > heads' of another class(es). At least now we > understand that the dictionary-specific stuff *could* be > left in a dictionary-specific namespace. Right ? to reinforce the point, NO. there is nothing special about dictionaries. they are just an extreme case of the daily routine of `section title in running head' > Generaly speaking - I don't think everything should be solved > on the level of XSL FOs. Maybe some stuff should be solved > at the 'level up' ? For us - the 'level-up' is XSLT. I should mention > that at the first versions of our engine we were considering to > write a significant part of FO renderer in XSLT. I'd go along with that. I am considering the same myself, for some things (basically, to give me more clues about tables) > 'spacer' tags right now. For the sake of poor users I think > it may be not that bad idea if all of XSL FO developers > will start sharing their 'spacer' tags so that it'l save > poor users. However, I may be asking too much in the James did make a specification for the running heads, but I will leave it to him whether or not he wants to propose it, so that XSL FO implementors can implement the same thing Sebastian XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: foo ... bar Re: Q: XML+XSL tran, James Tauber | Thread | Re: foo ... bar Re: Q: XML+XSL tran, David Carlisle |
Re: foo ... bar Re: Q: XML+XSL tran, Sebastian Rahtz | Date | Re: foo ... bar Re: Q: XML+XSL tran, Sebastian Rahtz |
Month |