Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript

Subject: Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript
From: Oleg Tkachenko <olegt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:54:21 +0200
Zack Brown wrote:

Yes, but remember, we're talking about using TeX only at the outer rim.
All the documents themselves would still be in XML, it's just that the
XSLT would produce TeX/PS instead of XSL-FO.
Don't forget that XSLT was invented for XML2XML transformation and particularly for transforming to XSL-FO, rererad XSLT spec Abstract.
Actually one can produce even java code using XSLT, but each tool is usually especially good for the task it was created. Using XSLT for producing "/N{def}def /B{bind def}N /S{exch}N" abracadabra is quite a quirky approach IMO.

most people, once they've produced XSL-FO files, will not process them with
anything other than standard tools to produce a printable file. To that
extent, XSL-FO might as well not even be XML,
C'mon, we are in XSL and it's our dogfood, what else it could be, yet-another-super-puper-format? That's rediculious, XSL-FO is supposed to be produced by XSLT and XSLT "is a language for transforming XML into other XML".

I wouldn't go that far. I think XML and XSLT are perfectly up to the
task. XSL-FO is the part that seems less good than available alternatives.
It's only version 1.0 after all.

not the case. XML is the way to go. But when processing XML for
printable output, I question whether XSL-FO is the best format to
produce from your XSLT recipes.
XSL-FO is not a printable output, it's just XML vocabulary for specifying *formatting semantics*.

Remember: no one writes XSL-FO by hand.
I think you got Jim wrong, that's obvious for everybody.

And if
that's the case, then the question I'm raising is, what is the best
format to use for the file being automatically produced?
Of course XML if you are talking about XSLT, isn't it obvious?

Oleg Tkachenko
Multiconn Technologies, Israel

XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread