Subject: Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:19:13 -0500 |
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?
Cheers, Wendell
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
___&&__&_&___&_&__&&&__&_&__&__&&____&&_&___&__&_&&_____&__&__&&_____&_&&_ "Thus I make my own use of the telegraph, without consulting the directors, like the sparrows, which I perceive use it extensively for a perch." -- Thoreau
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript, Oleg Tkachenko | Thread | RE: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript, bryan |
[xsl] Code re-use, Rod Humphris - FLPTN | Date | [xsl] Posting XML data [OT - sorry], Karl Stubsjoen |
Month |