Re: CSS Flow Objects in XSL [WAS: RE: HTML Flow objects that
I agree completely. I have RTF on the brain lately because I've been working with it so much. I should really be saying "print" format. I really would like to target several print formats but for now I need to support Word 97. To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx cc: (bcc: Mark Overton/PTS) From: Tony Graham <tgraham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 04/22/98 08:27:16 PM GMT Subject: Re: CSS Flow Objects in XSL [WAS: RE: HTML Flow objects that span rules] At 22 Apr 1998 15:08 -0400, Mark_Overton@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > I just think that print, on-line, etc are going to always have different > structures. Trying to shoe-horn them all into one set of flow objects is > going to limit the functionality to the least common denominator. As HTML > progresses are we going to try to implement every feature in print? I > think it would be clearer to have seperate sets of flow objects for each > output medium. If we try to create a master set of flow-objects and style > rules for all mediums I think we would end up with a giant, complex, set > which only confuses people. I'd rather have small, targeted sets > applicable to only the format I'm trying to create. Yes, but RTF is not the be-all-and-end-all of print formats. Up until now, you haven't been talking about print versus online, you've been talking about focussing directly on RTF. Despite its name, RTF is not the most rewarding of formats, and is itself something of a lowest common denominator for print. Unfortunately, not all RTF files (or RTF input filters) are created equal, and RTF that looks fine in Word can be ghastly in WordPerfect or FrameMaker. I suspect that the more specialised RTF constructs you use, the less portable your RTF becomes. If you have a set of print-oriented flow objects, not just RTF-oriented flow objects, then you can go from an XSL stylesheet to a word processor or page-layout software's native form (or exchange form, e.g. MIF), which will be more reliable than trusting how well that software interprets RTF. RTF itself is a moving target. The RTF specification is in a perpetual state of flux, and you can crash Word for Windows 95 by opening some RTF meant for Word 97. Why not use flow objects that describe what you want, instead of flow objects that describe how you can do it today but not necessarily how you will do it tomorrow? Regards, Tony Graham ======================================================================= Tony Graham Mulberry Technologies, Inc. Phone: 301-315-9632 17 West Jefferson Street, Suite 207 Fax: 301-315-8285 Rockville, MD USA 20850 email: tgraham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ======================================================================= XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
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