XSL FO how to make things go. Re: Q: XML+XSL transforms to
From: James Tauber Sent: Sunday, October 10, 1999 6:25 PM Subject: Re: foo ... bar Re: Q: XML+XSL transforms to a print-ready format > >From Paul's last reply to me, I think Paul and I have now phrased things in > such a way that we agree with each other. I suspect we really did all along. Not completely. ;-) I see more than one way to workaround "running heads" on the level of FOs and I'm not sure that I'l like to solve that particular problem instead of inveting the more general layer. After Sebastian will provide us with the usecase - the renderx will definately start rendering it, trying to design the most elegant approach. Of course, if we could have your approach before inveting our own it could be much better scenario, but it is not necessary. Unfortunately, the biggest problem I ( and not only I) see here is W3C silence. If they will just say that : "we'l place it into next version of WD coming tomorrow" - why should I start inveting the things that are to be solved by some professional designers anyway? If W3C says: "we'l postpone it until the version 2 (it is approx. the end of next year)" - no problem again - I *should* invent it right now. Unfortunately, if there is a silence about scheduling , the best thing I see may be to start with 'parallel' XSL WG when all of us implementing the XSL FO theme would start sharing our ideas and approaches ( exactly like XSL WG is doing it ). Such a strange world ... We already have a kind of 'parallel' XSL WG in renderx. A group of people reading the WD and making attempts to move forward without killing too much consistency. Given that we are doing it in the isolation ( and of course not all of us have the appropriate expereince ) - the results may be sometimes crazy ( ... however, the WD is anyway strange in some places ...). I'm sure that if we expand our group so that some other XSL FO implementators will provide their suggestions we'l get much better picture. On another hand, creating parallel XSL WG from implemetators only is also not the best possible thing, because implementators may start concentrating on some local aspects. So the best way is to work out the reasonable W3C process that will make things better for designers *and* implementators as well. It was the issue I raised in XML-dev list long time ago. The current W3C processes may cause the 'Linux' of XML. The discussion around "running heads" is the perfect illustration, of what I mean. It may easy happen that we'l have yours, Sebastian's and renderx approaches. All different. Firstly at the level of XSL FOs. Then we may get the same with other parts of XML. > The open issue is the interaction between user requirements, the scope of > the spec and what an implementation actually does. I think this is an issue > that extends well beyond XSL to standards-based development generally. Exactly. It's the business of W3C, right? > > The only question for me is now why should not I do it in the > > proprietary way? > Well, you don't have a choice. You *have* to do it a proprietary way because > there is no standard way. Perhaps if you, Sebastian and I implement it the > *same* way it won't be so bad. There is always some choice. For example there are more than three of us who are trying to produce some reasonable version of FOs. For example, Steve's questions shows that some people who did not yet announced their implementations are realy doing some very intersting things ;-) I think some kind of realistic process which will allow those who are involved in implementation to cooperate closely with those who are involved in the design may benefit everybody ( and poor uses as well ). Actualy, I'l be almost glad if it'l result in the situation when all of XSL FO implementators will start publishing their RFCs, share the testcases and results of rendering - maybe create the XSL FO portal e t.c. Yes, with each implementator implementing it's own 'spacer' tag it is obviosly the easiest approach. I just hope we'l not get to this situation. Maybe I'm too idealistic. Obviosly - I was. On another hand, because I respect you, Sebastian and many other XSL-list and/or WG participarors - if there will be any initiative to join the efforts and / or resources to improve the situation with XSL FO - I'l try to do all I can do to make renderx to join such initiative, even it'l require us to spend some more resources for that activity. Rgds.Paul. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= paul@xxxxxxxxx www.renderx.com www.pault.com XMLTube * Perl/JavaConnector * PerlApplicationServer =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= 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