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

["Reynolds, Gregg" <greynolds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sebastian Rahtz
> [mailto:sebastian.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, October 10, 1999 3:04 PM
> 
> 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),

(Ahem) ... and DL Pager and DL Composer etc.  ;)

> formatting language to typeset my XML documents, but compromising on
> page formatting features is simply not an option. If I was currently
> ...
> book-typesetting persona (I have others), XSL FO as it is proposed is
> interesting, but not a real option.
> 

Yes; maybe the real question is: will _any_ solution based on "Floormatting
Objects" ever work?  I have serious doubts about that.  I think it may be
the wrong set of abstractions, or the right set packaged in the wrong way.
Notice, by the way, the stupendous number of Humongous Corporate Entities
that have announced (or even hinted at) support for FOs.

>  > 
>  > 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'
> 

>From an abstract "just what is this thing" point of view, you are quite
right; however, if you look at it from the point of view of language design,
and especially language design in the DSSSL tradition, I think one can
reasonably argue that it is indeed special, in that it is very difficult to
find a way to express the intention.  It should be just a special case of a
general technique, but unfortunately that is not the heritage we have to
deal with; in my opinion it's pretty hard to find general principles at work
in DSSSL.  I'm sure they're there, but they're very well camouflaged.

Or look at the problem at a more general level:  when you letter a
publication by hand (pen or letterpress) you get to put whatever you want in
the running head (btw, it's the head that does the running, not the
content), based on whatever bizarro rules (or whims) you choose.  Third
letter of 27th word on every 5th page.  First heading that lands on that
page.  Citation form of last entry that lands on the page.  Whatever - the
point is that we have a specification based on properties of the form and/or
the content, as well as the pagination properties of the stylesheet.

What is really missing in all of this is a rigorous formal (or even
semi-formal) language (or meta-language) for formatting, which would allow
us to describe unambiguously what we mean by running heads or dictionary
heads or whatever.  I think this is what Paul was getting at when he wrote
of XML-input + PDF-output.  Not coincindentally, a formal language would
mean the interpretation of the spec is much less dependent on a mastery of
English.

I probably shouldn't post this; I've had virtually no time to work on this
stuff since last Spring, and I have almost no time to engage in discussions
about it now (much to my regret).  And needless to say, this expresses my
own opinions and not those of the XSL WG, and maybe not even those of my
management.  But in the interest of vigorous debate, bombs away....

-gregg


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