RE: Future of XSL-FO at W3C??
m batsis wrote: >I'm no expert on FO; print media was never in my every day work. It is unfortunately in mine. :( >But since you are talking about requierements, FO is far too complex and >verbose for no apparent reason (in my eyes at least). The verbosity was apparently conceived because xsl-fo was a format never to be written by hand but only to be achieved via transformation | programmatic output. This does not seem to me to be a good reason for verbosity(and I never understood that reasoning), especially as this just translates to unnecessarily verbose code. The complexity is at least partially dependant on the complexity of the problem, but the verbose syntax makes what is already complex seem even more so. One of the pitfalls of basing solutions on Xml I suppose. It could have been nice, I think, if XSL-FO had done without all the aural formatting properties, just for readability of the standard and reference works. Let that have it's own standard, I'm sure it will have to in the end anyway; Digital Talking Book ey. > Instead of >duplicating the semantics of CSS in XML syntax, it should have been >using CSS directly for the same reasons XPath expressions are not >written as XML. Definitely, especially as by not having this one loses out on the separation of tasks that css has made possible in large web developments, not to mention that css provides a more efficient layer for the separation of content and presentation than xslt does, which is not a slam at xslt. For my XSL-FO work I have re-implemented this separation.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format