Subject: Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript|
From: Oleg Tkachenko <olegt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:54:21 +0200
Don't forget that XSLT was invented for XML2XML transformation and particularly for transforming to XSL-FO, rererad XSLT spec Abstract.Yes, but remember, we're talking about using TeX only at the outer rim. All the documents themselves would still be in XML, it's just that the XSLT would produce TeX/PS instead of XSL-FO.
C'mon, we are in XSL and it's our dogfood, what else it could be, yet-another-super-puper-format? That's rediculious, XSL-FO is supposed to be produced by XSLT and XSLT "is a language for transforming XML into other XML".most people, once they've produced XSL-FO files, will not process them with anything other than standard tools to produce a printable file. To that extent, XSL-FO might as well not even be XML,
It's only version 1.0 after all.I wouldn't go that far. I think XML and XSLT are perfectly up to the task. XSL-FO is the part that seems less good than available alternatives.
XSL-FO is not a printable output, it's just XML vocabulary for specifying *formatting semantics*.not the case. XML is the way to go. But when processing XML for printable output, I question whether XSL-FO is the best format to produce from your XSLT recipes.
Remember: no one writes XSL-FO by hand.I think you got Jim wrong, that's obvious for everybody.
Of course XML if you are talking about XSLT, isn't it obvious?And if that's the case, then the question I'm raising is, what is the best format to use for the file being automatically produced?
-- Oleg Tkachenko Multiconn Technologies, Israel