Subject: Re: XSL FOs -> PDF using InDesign From: "James Tauber" <jtauber@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 09:19:30 -0400 |
> But why would you want to: > > XML -> XSL -> XSL:FO -> MIF -> Frame -> PDF > > When you could just go: > > XML -> MIF -> Frame -> PDF You are misleading people with the latter. The XML -> MIF stage needs to be done with something. In the former, it is done with XSLT + a tool for FO2MIF. In the latter you would use a programming language like Python, Perl or Omnimark. Also, your example merges two orthogonal choices: XSLT versus Python/Perl/Omnimark and direct MIF versus MIF via FO. I know where you stand on the first issue, so factoring that out, the two choices are: XML -> FO -> MIF versus XML -> MIF The advantage of the former is that you can code a stylesheet that is independent of the fact your are outputting MIF. You could then have a whole range of backends: MIF, RTF, TeX, etc. James Tauber XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XSL FOs -> PDF using InDesign, Sebastian Rahtz | Thread | Re: XSL FOs -> PDF using InDesign, James Robertson |
Re: XSL FOs -> PDF using InDesign, Sebastian Rahtz | Date | Re: XSL FOs -> PDF using InDesign, Sara Mitchell |
Month |