Subject: Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists as tables) From: James Robertson <jamesr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:18:33 +1000 |
"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.
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?
------------------------- 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: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists , Sebastian Rahtz | Thread | Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists , Sebastian Rahtz |
RE: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists , Reynolds, Gregg | Date | RE: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists , Ed Nixon |
Month |