Subject: Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript From: "W. Eliot Kimber" <eliot@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 17:54:22 -0800 |
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.
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?
Eliot -- W. Eliot Kimber, eliot@xxxxxxxxxx Consultant, ISOGEN International
1016 La Posada Dr., Suite 240 Austin, TX 78752 Phone: 512.656.4139
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
[xsl] xslt and longest common subse, | Thread | Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript, Zack Brown |
RE: [xsl] embedded xslt with xsl:in, Joe Meree | Date | RE: [xsl] Select entire XML doc, Dhiraj Torane |
Month |