Re: XSL-FO versus PostScript
Having said that, while I am a supporter of FO, given that most of my documents are English and/or mathematics (ie no vertical or bi-directional text no fancy bordered effects) I would always (at the moment) print XML via XSLT stylesheet to latex rather than to FO. (see the pdf versions of the MathML spec for example) It's hard to know in my case though whether that's based on a real unbiased assesment or just a product of having latex somewhere burried deep into my subconcious after having worked on it for 15 years or so.
But it doesn't much matter, does it? Over fifteen years you're bound to have an installed base of latex that does the job you need very nicely ... and that's easier to generate from a transform than PS.
The general point that this is all about bringing certain kinds of control back to the author (or maybe, to the author's proxy in the authoring format's designer) is also really important to keep in mind, it seems to me. That's another reason why XSLT optimizes for XML->XML transforms, and isn't very good at (for example) up-conversions.
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