RE: Nostradamus (was Re: FO. lists as tables)

>It sounds like no one's really happy.  So let those who want powerful FO
>vocabularies migrate to DSSSL, and those who can cope with a Web-centric
>vocabulary stick around with XSLT and CSS.

This reminds me of an Omnimark consultant (we're going to use Omnimark for
conversion) who, when I asked him if I could use Omnimark to convert XML to
PDF, suggested that maybe I would be better off using DSSSL. I have no
difficulty believing him, because DSSSL is strong both in transformation and
in formatting. It's ideal to have one language capable of both. 

I played around with DSSSL for a while, but then XSL (before it was split
into XSLT and XSL-FO) showed up as the language that could do both
transformation and formatting on the Web as well as for printed media. Even
more ideal, I'd say! 

It looks to me as though XSL is threatened by both the capabilities of DSSSL
and of CSS. Each of them have their domain, for which they seem best suited
when compared to XSL. These domains, however, should not be separate - think
of one source, multiple output situations. XSL could be the bridge between
them: if it is allowed to grow into a transformation + formatting language,
for both online and printed media. 

jmt
Linda


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list