Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: FOs again
 Sebastian Rahtz wrote: > Surely this is chalk and cheese. Word is about an authoring interface, > XSL FO is about an interchange language for abstract page > description. Word now uses RTF for exchange (sort of) - it could > switch to using XSL FO. My point is that the FOs that XSL-FO provides must be rich enough to support documents formatted by Word: that is the bottom line for a serious format interchange-language. This is in response to the original post that said that FOs are too complex, or at least that they are some based on ticking off a wish-list that seemed a bit arbitrary (I don't know why). I am not endorsing Word as the standard of excellence, merely as the market leader which in itself allows us to extract a base list of features that would have to be supported. I am not sure that XSL-FO really is best thought of as an interchange language. I would see it far more as an internal interface within an XML-based typesetting system which provides a convenient way to specify a formatter as a black box. > > So if CSS starts from utter simplicity and is attempting to grow richer, > > and if XSL-FO starts from high-quality and attempts to make it as simple > > as possible, what is left? Probably there is scope for a middle > > language. > > I'd like to see some evidence for that :-} It is a logical category; obviously I don't think it is a real fruitful area as a real category. I use Star Office, and I would be delighted if they XML-ed it up nicely. > > 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? I would hardly think "aging" should be a perjorative term from someone who loves TeX :-) My point was that if someone thinks that FOs are too complicated, there are systems which are not nearly as complicated and may be completely acceptable for many kinds of publication, depending as always on the amount of effort one puts in. I would hate for the minimalist virus to hit against XSL-FO. In some faroff corners of the world, perhaps in distant plantations, there may be some people who will insist on typesetting without a firm grasp of Hart's rules. I just don't believe that professional quality typesetting can be achieved automatically without tools that are smart enough to try different strategies which depend in turn on the particular page design being used; a good typesetter can use pretty crappy tools and make a good fist of it because of their expertise and eye. But for a production process, one needs as much sophistication as possible available, and the ability to teach the system new tricks (e.g. by improving macros, etc over time as new cases arise). Rick Jelliffe *************************************************************************** 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/ *************************************************************************** 
|
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
|
|||||||||
