Re: XSL-FO versus PostScript
At 10:06 PM 2/27/2003, you wrote:
I asked why we should prefer XSL-FO over PostScript, since PostScript is more powerful. The reply was that PostScript didn't have the high level document features provided by XSL-FO. So now my reply is, TeX provides those high-level features, *and* it allows PostScript constructs that give the full power of PostScript to the user. Is there another reason to prefer XSL-FO?
XSL-FO is relatively more intelligible to the average typographer or layout designer than (raw) TeX. At least in theory. So for them at least (or is it "us"?) it's easier to write transforms quickly and efficiently for the 80% of content-driven layout applications that are targetted by XSL-FO.
If you happen to be a TeX/PostScript expert and you can do better than FO at defining higher-level formatting primitives (and believe me, unless you want major work with each new stylesheet, you'll be doing this before long, though they may be disguised at first as an XSLT template library ;-) -- it would be a major contribution to do so! XSL 2.0 is bound to benefit.
Sebastian Rahtz has implemented an FO processor in TeX. And earlier, IBM had a product, TeXML I think it was, which provided a declarative XML layer over TeX that you could target in a transform ... then a back end processor could render it into TeX. (Ah, now I see Joe K. has mentioned that. Check out alphaworks.ibm.com.)
So it's not really either/or.
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