Re: Venting 2
Chris Lilley wrote: > > FO isn't a "language" unless you also consider HTML, DocBook, etc to to > be langauges. FO isn't a language because it is not defined that way. HTML and DocBook are languages because they are defined in that way (i.e. in terms of characters in a sequence). > Its an XSML namespace, though. It should be possible to > write a DTD or other schema for it. I don't se it being "implicit" in > the XSL spec, it seems quite explicit to me. The formatting object *language* is implicit. It is defined in terms of a tree, not in terms of a set of legal character sequences. There is no provision for an XSL processor of any sort to take a stream of <fo:foo> elements as an XML stream and display them without first applying a stylesheet (at least the identity stylesheet). > That software is called a formatter. If the software that generates the > FOs is also the software that consumes them, then it makes no sense to > write out the FOs to a file. If the formatter is on a different computer > than the software that generated the FOs - for exampl, if the formatter > is in a printer - then it does make sense to serialise it out. The XSL specification does not define a software component called a formatter. There is a single monolithic beast called an "XSL Processor." That's what I am complaining about. Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco "Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did, but she did it backwards and in high heels." --Faith Whittlesey 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