Subject: Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:52:46 GMT |
> Wouldn't that be very cool? well it would be very familiar at least. Anyone using a postscript back end to (la)tex typesetting has been able to do all those kind of things for a couple of decades or so. I don't think it really fits with the FO model though. the point of FO is that it intentionally cuts out lots of device specific processing so that it can be a cross platform language for specifying the style and layout. In particular in FO there is no feedback from the typeset constructs to the layout engine so you can't ask as you can in PS or TeX, "does this fit here" changing that would be a big change to FO. David XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript, Zack Brown | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript, Zack Brown |
Re: [xsl] OMR Mark for folding mach, J.Pietschmann | Date | [xsl] Re: Sort question, Dimitre Novatchev |
Month |