[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: FOs again

• From: James Robertson <jamesr@s...>
• To: xml-dev@x...
• Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:49:16 +1000

At 09:23 18/06/2000, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:

>  > But I think this a market that is well-catered for. If you
>  > look at Word Perfect, FrameMaker+SGML, Cost, etc, there are many
>  > products
>am i being dense? what is the common factor between an ageing
>word-processor, an ageing page formatter with SGML tagged on, and an
>SGML processing setup?

Replace "ageing" with "well-established", "tried and true",
"proven", and I struggle to see your point.

XSL-FO is by definition better because it's newer?

Hmmm.

I presume that during the development process for
XSL-FO, a comprehensive review was made of current
tools and technologies.

This would have generated a list of functionality.

The working group would then have gone through and
ticked or crossed which functions they were going
to match.

If this process was followed (surely it was),
can we have the list? This would provide us with
the best comparison of XSL-FO and other systems.

Or am I being naieve in thinking that such
a process was followed?

J

-------------------------
James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
Illumination: an out-of-the-box Intranet solution

http://www.steptwo.com.au/
jamesr@s...


***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************

• References:
  • Re: FOs again
    • From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>
  • FOs again
    • From: Amy Lewis <amyzing@t...>
  • Re: FOs again
    • From: "Sebastian Rahtz" <sebastian.rahtz@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why I dislike CSS
• Next by Date: Another Question
• Previous by thread: Re: FOs again
• Next by thread: Re: FOs again
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread