Subject: RE: [xsl] xsl:document, fo output From: "Bryan Rasmussen" <bry@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:25:05 +0100 |
>> I guess the question is as always what one wants to do, if >> the structure was >> really as simple as that then I think any improvement >> wouldn't result in any >> great benefit. >3 files involved. >the pages.xsl, 100 lines >the ps.xsl (attribute sets) 90 lines. >the 'worker' stylesheet, 500 lines. >To repeat it all would be 'rather large'. even with includes. well it's hard to say about making it neater, I think the structure of fo doesn't much provide for anything like low overhead or things that are probably of import in many situations, that said, one thing I do with fo is to have an xml-based css syntax that I call with the document() function to build attributes. In this way I can get sort of the same thing as you get with css + html, when I batch. Also it allows me to push formatting work off on the designers at my work who know css and xml well enough to use the format. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] xsl:document, fo output, DPawson | Thread | [xsl] Extension Functions written i, Sabrina Fords |
RE: [xsl] xsl:document, fo output, DPawson | Date | RE: [xsl] xpath expression - select, Zwetselaar M. van (M |
Month |