Subject: Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists as tables) From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 23:45:41 +0100 (BST) |
> Doesn't that go hand-in-hand with the idea of portability? No. I see portability as meaning use of the same stylesheet with different systems. A notion of portability that means everyone is using the same system (baring dull issues like efficiency or host operating system) is not what I had in mind at all. I am at heart a tex user. I want to be able to use xslfo/dsssl with tex, and I want word users to use the same stylesheets. I have no hope ever of seeing word have a reasonable line breaking algorithm, and I do have hope of a son-of-tex having a better one (and a much better page breaking algorithm). So I expect all these formatters to produce different results. > It's easy to envision two word processors that use exactly > the same file format, exactly the same line-breaking algorithms, etc., > yet have completely different user interfaces. the user interface is not much of an issue if you are just batch formatting FO's being churned out by an XSL engine, is it? You are not using the system to author anything, just reading it in and driving a printer or screen or voice synthesiser or whatever. > Why is that a bad thing? If we're not allowed to improve upon existing > implementations, then why not just use those implementations as the > standard(s)? Because the whole point is that it is not a one-implementation system. It is not an unspecified free-for-all;A by the time the XSL spec is finished, it will hopefully fully specify what is constrained when you set various FO with various properties. It is just that those constraints will be things like font size and spacing around text blocks, not normally things like how many lines result from a given piece of text. > Again, I don't see why that's such a bad thing. Sure, it means that > existing code bases are going to have to be tweaked in order to > conform to the specification No tweaked, discarded. Are you really saying that (given the code) getting son-of-tex, son-of-word, son-of-frame, and daughter-of-quark to all produce identical line and page breaks on a given input would just be a matter of some `tweaks'. The only way it would work as you outline is to pick one of those, extend it as needed, and declare all the others non conforming. David XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists , Didier PH Martin | Thread | Interaction of current() with name(, Clark C. Evans |
Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists , Christopher R. Maden | Date | Interaction of current() with name(, Clark C. Evans |
Month |