Subject: Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 22:09:10 GMT |
> Modulo limitations in the XSL 1.0 spec, a good FO implementation should > be able to produce results comparable with TeX (and of course, there are > two TeX-based FO implementations, Sebastian's well sebastian's is written using the xmltex parser and element matching system implemented in TeX (by me) so I know something about that one:-) > possibly even leveraging existing TeX-based MathML processing. well not surprisingly passivetex supports mathml. In fact xmltex just loads support files on demand as it hits each namespace so you can freely intermingle html docbook tei and mathml and it'll do something more or less sensible (not that I recommend that:-) > but there's no *inherent* limitation in the ability of FO-based > systems to produce typographic results as good as those produced by any > other system. Actually I disagree. XSLT inherits from DSSL implementations a lack of feedback from the typesetter to the rest of the system. this means that there are some things you just can not do without some non standard extension. In latex I have (in FO speak) a formatting object for a table layout that goes something like if it fits, put it here otherwise try it in landscape, if it doesn't fit that way either reduce the font size If it fits on one page make it into a floating table otherwise tyeset it here as a multipage table, possibly landscape. You just can't do that with FO as FO doesn't have the vocabulary to make the tests and the XSLT stage before the FO doesn't have the information about rendered size. That example is a bit extreem but even the bog standard latex figure table captioning formatting object isn't available in FO which says roughly typeset it one way if it will fit on a line, otherwise typeset it slightly differently as a displayed paragrah. Then there's a whole raft of issues about references to page numbers etc only known at formatting time. references to "on this page" etc. I think you've commented on these before. All of these are standard with something like latex (and easy to achieve because of its tight integration with the formatter, although as I commented before this comes at a heavy price: tight integration with a formatter...) > To that degree it's not even meaningful to compare XSL-FO > (or TeX) and PostScript. yes agreed that's why I said it was apples and oranges in my initial post on this thread. > The value of XSL-FO accrues from its generality and abstraction, total agreement here. > at the cost of some limitations in >functionality. I'm a bit confused here because I seem to be agreeing with your whole message including this bit, which seems to not agree with teh "inherent limitation" qute above, unless you mn that these feedback issues could be fixed in a revised spec? David XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript, W. Eliot Kimber | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript, Wendell Piez |
Re: [xsl] Posting XML data [OT - so, Mike Brown | Date | Re: [xsl] Fw: Select entire XML doc, Karl Stubsjoen |
Month |