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

Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??

• To: David Rosenborg <darolst@p...>
• Subject: Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
• From: "J.Pietschmann" <j3322ptm@y...>
• Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 22:30:35 +0200
• Cc: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>, bry@i..., xml-dev@l...
• References: <000001c27688$19b61b70$2001a8c0@bryans> <200210180943.KAA27552@p...> <003101c2768e$0b8cddd0$6500000a@KENNY>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

David Rosenborg wrote:
 > But when I think of it, we really don't have to wait for XSL-FO 2 for
 > this to happen. XSL-FO++ (with CSS) could be handled in a preprocessor
 > yielding XSL-FO 1.0 as its output.

What's the advantage of using a three sttage approach
  source XML - >(XSLT) -> XSLFO+CSS -> (CSS processor) -> XSLFO
if you can transform the source XML into the target XSLFO
directly? What's the advantage of expressing the style properties
in a language with Yet Another Syntax which can provide difficulties
when it has to be processed in the XSL transformation? (except of
showing that one still knows the CSS syntax, of course)

J.Pietschmann

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
    • From: "David Rosenborg" <darolst@p...>

• References:
  • RE: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
    • From: "bryan" <bry@i...>
  • Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
    • From: "David Rosenborg" <darolst@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
• Next by Date: Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
• Previous by thread: Annotation to transformation (was Re: Future of XSL-FO)
• Next by thread: Re: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread