Subject: Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript From: Jim Melton <jim.melton@xxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:43:57 -0700 |
Hope this helps, Jim
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 07:52:46PM +0000, David Carlisle wrote: > > > > 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.
But (and I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to make a decision), why doesn't this restrict XSL-FO to being just a cute example of an XML application? If by using TeX, people can get the power of PostScript without sacrificing XSL-FO's high level formatting features, then why wouldn't TeX be the proper solution for their problem? Even if XSL-FO is fully device independent, a TeX/PS solution isn't exactly device specific.
So to sum up the argument so far:
I asked why we should prefer XSL-FO over PostScript, since PostScript is more powerful. The reply was that PostScript didn't have the high level document features provided by XSL-FO. So now my reply is, TeX provides those high-level features, *and* it allows PostScript constructs that give the full power of PostScript to the user. Is there another reason to prefer XSL-FO?
Peace, Zack
> > 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 >
-- Zack Brown
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
======================================================================== Jim Melton --- Editor of ISO/IEC 9075-* (SQL) Phone: +1.801.942.0144 Oracle Corporation Oracle Email: mailto:jim.melton@xxxxxxxxxx 1930 Viscounti Drive Standards email: mailto:jim.melton@xxxxxxx Sandy, UT 84093-1063 Personal email: mailto:jim@xxxxxxxxxxx USA Fax : +1.801.942.3345 ======================================================================== = Facts are facts. However, any opinions expressed are the opinions = = only of myself and may or may not reflect the opinions of anybody = = else with whom I may or may not have discussed the issues at hand. = ========================================================================
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript, Zack Brown | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript, Zack Brown |
Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript, Zack Brown | Date | Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript, Zack Brown |
Month |