Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Future of Formatting Objects (XSL/FO)
 Sebastian Rahtz wrote: > > Peter Murray-Rust writes: > > So why can't FOP have the same dynamics? If a group of committed people > > want to drive it forward, what is lost? > > I don't think anyone suggested that the FOP effort is anything other > than very laudauble and useful. The point at issue is whether XSL FO > is _theoretically_ capable of producing the high-quality formatting we > are used to. We pretty sure that SVG is as least as capabable as > PDF, because we can see the mapping between them. Half the attraction > of SVG is that is very clearly related to highly-successful vector formats. > I would claim that the jury is out on XSL FO. Different criteria of quality are appropriate for different products. Knuth made an interesting comment about TeX that there will always be the need to hand-tune some pages. For example, if there is a large anchored graphic that breaks onto the next page, causing large amounts of whitespace on the previous page. Or if a chapter ends with a couple of lines on a recto (odd) page. There are various approaches to overcome this: playing with line-length, font-size, leading or column-lengths (e.g. Word Perfect's copyfitting); providing warnings of pages that fail to meet minimum badness (e.g. TeX); having smarter macro languages that can attempt some custom fiddles (e.g. Interleaf). The approach I think would be nice is to be able to mark up alternative portions, weighting them for "fluff" value. This would be especially useful for newspapers. So you could have <p><span fluff="medium">American President</span> Bill Clinton<span fliff="high">, in town to support a capital punishment amendment,</span> was rescued by Linda Tripp from an attack by a disabled transvestite fisherman from Florida<span fluff="medium"> outside the former OJ Simpson estate</span>.</p> I am excited to see the results of XSL-FO: it is looking great. But a good page design will often need to be tuned to fit the formatter: a formatter that does not provide feathering and which tries to keep paragaphs together by pushing them forward a page (i.e., by its default widow/orphan settings) will probably benefit from conservative amounts of bottom margin, to reduce the whitespace at the bottom of pages. May I also defend FrameMaker? I have found it so convenient, especially for producing PDF with the built-in Acrobat distiller. The thing I was surprised about was that I even found myself making slides for seminars using the structured editor: it was simply more convenient than using WYSIWYG or vi or an HTML editor (my normal choices). For CJK publishing, it supports ruby characters. For complex XML/SGML, one can do transformations outside and import, just as one would end up doing with TeX, Word, WP, etc. It has lots of nice tunable parameters: very nice. For production work it is great. (If only it had as good a grammar checker as Word Perfect's!) 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
|
|||||||||
