Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript

Subject: Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript
From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:24:24 -0500
At 01:59 PM 2/28/2003, David wrote:
Having said that, while I am a supporter of FO, given that most of my
documents are English and/or mathematics (ie no vertical or
bi-directional text no fancy bordered effects) I would always
(at the moment) print XML via XSLT stylesheet to latex rather than
to FO. (see the pdf versions of the MathML spec for example)
It's hard to know in my case though whether that's based on
a real unbiased assesment or just a product of having latex
somewhere burried deep into my subconcious after having worked on it for
15 years or so.

But it doesn't much matter, does it? Over fifteen years you're bound to have an installed base of latex that does the job you need very nicely ... and that's easier to generate from a transform than PS.

The general point that this is all about bringing certain kinds of control back to the author (or maybe, to the author's proxy in the authoring format's designer) is also really important to keep in mind, it seems to me. That's another reason why XSLT optimizes for XML->XML transforms, and isn't very good at (for example) up-conversions.


___&&__&_&___&_&__&&&__&_&__&__&&____&&_&___&__&_&&_____&__&__&&_____&_&&_ "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

XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread