Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript

Subject: Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript
From: Zack Brown <zbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:41:25 -0800
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:30:15AM -0500, Joseph Kesselman wrote:
> Just a quick observation: If you really prefer to think in terms of 
> generating TeX rather than XSL-FO,  IBM published a technology 
> demonstration quite some time ago which consisted of a  XML equivalent 
> syntax for LaTeX and a postprocessor that would convert this into standard 
> LaTeX markup.  It might still be available from the alphaWorks website.

You mean TeXML? The problem with that is that it constrains the XML you
use in your original documents. XSL-FO doesn't make that assumption, and
I think that's a big argument in favor of XSL-FO. The constraint we've
been considering in this discussion has only been with the XSLT recipes:
should they transform arbitrary XML into XSL-FO or into something else?

Be well,

> ______________________________________
> Joe Kesselman, IBM Next-Generation Web Technologies:
> XML, XSL and more.  "may'ron DaroQbe'chugh vaj bIrIQbej" 
> ("Put down the squeezebox and nobody gets hurt.")
>  XSL-List info and archive:

Zack Brown

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread