Subject: Re: foo ... bar Re: Q: XML+XSL transforms to a print-ready format From: crism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Christopher R. Maden) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 01:29:43 -0700 |
[Sebastian Rahtz] >If the WG say about running heads "don't worry your pretty heads, >we'll put in something to solve the problem", that'll do just fine. If >they say "sorry, its beyond the scope of XSL FO", thats also fine (but >a pity), I am not forced to use XSL FO. BUT if they say, "traditional >book layouts are within our remit, but we cannot work out a spec >because we want to get the proposal out before Christmas", then I cry >"shame on you!". Bringing out an incomplete XSL FO (_according to its >own spec_) would be a disaster (in my opinion). I wouldn't necessarily think so. Getting a solid foundation out would be no sin, especially given how delayed it already is. As long as the initial cut doesn't interfere with future expansion, I don't think there's anything wrong with releasing a spec in phases. Making people who want a scrolled document wait until running heads can be properly specified just doesn't make sense. -Chris -- Christopher R. Maden, Solutions Architect Exemplary Technologies One Embarcadero Center, Ste. 2405 San Francisco, CA 94111 XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: foo ... bar Re: Q: XML+XSL tran, Sebastian Rahtz | Thread | Re: foo ... bar Re: Q: XML+XSL tran, Sebastian Rahtz |
Re: format-date? Was: XSLT and XPa, James Clark | Date | XSL - How do you put a <!DOCTYPE> i, Dylan Walsh |
Month |