Re: [xsl] [xsl] xsl 2.0?

Subject: Re: [xsl] [xsl] xsl 2.0?
From: Wayne Brissette <wbrisett@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 04:54:22 -0600
On Nov 4, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Tony Graham wrote:

>> 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 do
>> ourselves, so there certainly is a level of frustration in our business
> What technology did you use to 'do ourselves'?

Sorry Tony, you're right. I didn't explain that very well seeing as how that's
what I'm suppose to be doing! :)

Until recently (the last 8 years or so), XML wasn't really a major player in
the tech pubs world. It was there, but really the tools of the trade were
FrameMaker, Word, and to a less extent everything else. It's the tech pubs
world that has seen an explosion of XML use, and with most small to medium
size companies not really having the knowledge to make things work, outside
help tends to be needed. That's what I was trying to say. Having anybody on
staff that really understands XSLT and XSL-FO to overcome a lot of the
publication issues tech pub organizations face is really a tough sell to
management in a lot of cases. Management was use to hiring a writer or two,
who then typically setup a stylesheet in FrameMaker or Word, then created

>> 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.
> I was interested to see at the Paris workshop how many people were using
> XSL-FO, though for the ones invited to speak, it really was 'were' in the
> past tense.
> What would it take to make XSL-FO easier to use for publishers?

Current Thread