Re: XSL-FO Does it have the guts?
> In Leventhal's critic of XSL on xml.com, one of his first arguments > against XSL is that it provides flow objects that don't make sense on > the web, such as page flow objects. Most of the formatting objects currently in XSL are appropriate for both online and print. Some are designed for paginated environments like print (although you can have paginated environments online too, mind you) > Then he says that the number of people who will be publishing to more than one media (paper and web) > will be small in number Lots of people want to publish stuff in dual media. I don't know where Michael gets the idea they don't. > and they can easily pick up existing standards: CSS, and DSSSL to do that kind of publishing. It is much easier to manage dual-media publishing if the same stylesheet language / system is used for each medium. I don't understand the argument that says that CSS for online and DSSSL for print is easier than XSL for both. > He later goes onto state: "I am qualified to give an expert opinion in this area and my opinion is > that DSSSL and XSL are hard!" Since I am not an expert in > formatting/transformation languages, I'm trying to validate this claim. Formatting is hard. If I wrote FOP (my XSL formatter) for CSS instead of for XSL, it would not make my job much easier. Most of the advances XSL currently (note use of the word "currently") makes over CSS are relatively easy to implement. Multiple page masters and regions weren't hard at all in FOP. I even know how I'm going to implement dictionary-style headers for when they make it in the XSL spec. The *hard* parts of FOP are generally in the areas (no pun intended) that apply to CSS or any other formatting system. > I buy into the *concept* that XSL will be able to publish to more than > one media with the same source and formatting language, and I think > Leventhal misses the point that XML is all about looking beyond the > web. Does the set of flow objects currently in the XSL spec have enough > power for publishing? On the continuum from 'easy' to 'hard' publishing > jobs, what will XSL be able to address? In my opinion (I have worked in both web and print publishing, but I won't claim to give an "expert" opinion) the XSL spec *as it currently stands* will give pretty powerful print capabilities---probably exceeding your typical word processor (but maybe not by much). Even if it stops at this point, this has the potential to revolutionize publishing. In the longer term, though, I suspect XSL will achieve more advanced capabilities like dictionary-style headings, sychronized marginalia, etc. The great thing is that XSL has, I believe, a solid framework. XSL does CSS-like formatting in a very CSS-like way (from an abstract formatting view they have *a lot* in common for the simple stuff) but it is possible to increase the functionality to its current spec state and beyond *within* the framework. XSL draws a lot from DSSSL and this is one of its great advantages. A lot of the tough conceptual thinking was done for DSSSL. With XSL, the great minds behind DSSSL (people like James Clark and Anders Berglund* ) have been able to make it really practical to use. James Tauber *just to pick two :-) 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