Re: [xsl] xsl 2.0?
At 2013-11-02 16:23 +0900, Toshihiko Makita wrote:
3. I beleive that XSL-FO is most suitable techinology for formatting
Agreed. My customers are getting real-world problems solved with XSL-FO 1.1.
I think the few things that are needed and are found (or not) in some
vendor extensions would be good fodder for an XSL-FO 1.2 rather than
an XSL-FO 2.0 (e.g. line numbering, repeating sets of page master
references, more page-position testing options, etc.).
I also think the features of XSL-FO 1.x are going to continue to
satisfy high-volume or highly-repetitive print requirements for a
very long time.
Of course I'm not trying to devalue the work those working on XSL-FO
2.x are creating to meet client requirements of theirs that demand
the changes needed ... I'm just not seeing anything major that has to
change for me to do my job.
Does CSS techinology become the complete alternative of the XSL-FO?
I don't think so, but then again, I haven't been following CSS very
closely since XSL-FO 1.1 has been meeting my client's expectations.
. . . . . . . . Ken
Public XSLT, XSL-FO, UBL & code list classes: Melbourne, AU May 2014 |
Contact us for world-wide XML consulting and instructor-led training |
Free 5-hour lecture: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/links/udemy.htm |
Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/s/ |
G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
Google+ profile: https://plus.google.com/116832879756988317389/about |
Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal |