Re: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists as tables)
On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 12:20:12 -0400, you wrote: >I think the XSL WG *is* tuned to the needs of typesetters. I'm not so sure. From the XSL Requirements Summary (thanks to Tony Graham for reminding us of its existence; it's been a long time since I looked at it): --------8<-------- Predictability Page fidelity is neither a requirement nor a goal. Presented with the same document and the same stylesheet, a given renderer should always produce the same results. Different renderers should produce similar results. --------8<-------- To me, it looks like HTML all over again. HTML is non-portable, because every browser renders it differently. The end result is that people spend inordinate amounts of time hand-tweaking their HTML so that it looks more or less the same in each browser. That different XSL formatters will produce only "similar" results may be acceptable for online display, at least in some situations, but it certainly won't cut it for paper. How many times have you been infuriated by a word processor or DTP system that steadfastly refuses to format the output the way you want, no matter what you try? A bevy of "XSL-compatible" formatters that sorta kinda produce the same output is only going to make matters worse. -Steve Schafer 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