Subject: Re: [xsl] Prince XML vs Docbook From: "Michael Kay mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 19:02:13 -0000 |
> On 18 Jan 2018, at 17:06, Eliot Kimber ekimber@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ekimber@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > Therebs no inherent reason CSS pagination has to be mediocre. > > My observation is itbs another case of simply not having enough resources available to get the work done. I think you've just given the inherent reason. Getting the resources to do a high quality job for people with high-end requirements requires significant investment. Getting the resources to do a mediocre job (by which I mean, to satisfy the needs of those who aren't very fussy) is much easier. (I wasn't trying to suggest there's any architectural problem with a CSS-based solution. Just that the economics always favours meeting the 50% of the requirements that are enough to satisfy 90% of the users, and stopping there.) Michael Kay Saxonica
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] Prince XML vs Docbook, Eliot Kimber ekimber | Thread | Re: [xsl] Prince XML vs Docbook, Charles O'Connor coc |
Re: [xsl] Prince XML vs Docbook, Eliot Kimber ekimber | Date | Re: [xsl] Prince XML vs Docbook, Liam R. E. Quin liam |
Month |