Subject: Re: foo ... bar Re: Q: XML+XSL transforms to a print-ready format From: James Robertson <jamesr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 09:56:33 +1000 |
> 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.
Yes, there are some design flaws. It's not easy to see all of them until you try to render some particular usecase. There is no suprize here - I can't belive one can design a realy good language without constantly trying to use that language.
Two independent implementations before something can become a final specification.
------------------------- James Robertson Step Two Designs Pty Ltd SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy http://www.steptwo.com.au/ jamesr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Beyond the Idea" ACN 081 019 623
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: foo ... bar Re: Q: XML+XSL tran, Paul Tchistopolskii | Thread | RE: foo ... bar Re: Q: XML+XSL tran, Sebastian Rahtz |
Outputting XML?, Mitch Christensen | Date | Re: page numbers. Re: Q: XML+XSL tr, Paul Tchistopolskii |
Month |