[xsl] re:[xsl] xsl 2.0?

Subject: [xsl] re:[xsl] xsl 2.0?
From: Wayne Brisette <wbrisett@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 07:48:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Tony Graham <tgraham@xxxxxxxxxx>

> It's one of those things where the
answer if different for different
> people.  I've had more approaches for
XSL-FO work in the last 18 months
> than in any similar period previously, so,
yes, it's working for many
> people,

I suspect (and maybe you can confirm
this Tony) that the reason you are 
seeing an uptick in work is due to
companies moving away from the 
traditional publishing (FrameMaker, MS-Word)
and moving more into
XML-based authoring environments such as DocBook and
DITA. That being 
said, those of us in that business find ourselves having to
reach out 
more and more to programmers and consultants to do things we use to
ourselves, so there certainly is a level of frustration in our business
we haven't had in quite some time. I for one keep looking at more 
CSS options only because, as mentioned here, finding 
somebody who has css
experience is easier and a lot of times you have 
that experience within a
company. However, with the exception of 
MadCap's Flare product, which we're
not using (not sure what engine they
licensed, but it uses CSS) nearly all the
PDF publishing systems are 
using XSLT/XSL-FO for building PDFs.


Current Thread