Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists as tables)

[James Robertson <jamesr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 04:22 15/10/1999 , Rick Geimer wrote:

> "Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
>
> >
> > It sounds like no one's really happy.  So let those who want powerful FO
> > vocabularies migrate to DSSSL, and those who can cope with a Web-centric
> > vocabulary stick around with XSLT and CSS.
> >
>
> I think you have ignored those who need both web and print display, and
> don't want to have to deal with multiple languages to get it.

Yes, but:

For the web
-----------

XSLT is just too wierd for most programmers
(just my opinion, and yes, I read the huge
thread on this before).

XSL:FO doesn't seem to be needed at all.
People like CSS.

For paper
---------

XSLT is too "lightweight". Without regular
expressions, strong multi-file output, etc
(along with many other things), I'm just not
convinced it's ready for real, complex work.

XSL:FO is not implemented in any concrete
way. It is therefore plagued by omissions,
errors and deficiencies (see the recent threads
on headers, etc).

So, what exactly is XSLT/XSL:FO directly
targetted at?

J

-------------------------
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


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