Re: XSL-FO versus PostScript

On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 05:54:22PM -0800, W. Eliot Kimber wrote:
> Yes--on the EXSLFO list I've discussed several possible low-cost 
> solutions to this limitation,

Do you mean the FOP-dev list or something else? If something else, can
you give subscription information? Google doesn't seem to know about it.

Be well,
Zack

> and an architected solution in the spec 
> itself is certainly possible.  It's also important to keep in mind that 
> while XSL was designed to support a two-stage generate/paginate process, 
> it does not require that--there's no reason an FO implementation 
> couldn't provide a private feedback mechanism in an all-in-one processor.
> 
> My low-cost solution is simply to define a mechanism by which FO 
> processors can be directed to generate auxiliary, or "side" files, with 
> page- and marker-specific information that can be fed back into an XSLT 
> process. This would enable a multi-pass, layout-aware process at minimal 
> additional cost to FO implementations.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Eliot
> -- 
> W. Eliot Kimber, eliot@xxxxxxxxxx
> Consultant, ISOGEN International
> 
> 1016 La Posada Dr., Suite 240
> Austin, TX  78752 Phone: 512.656.4139
> 
> 
> XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
> 

-- 
Zack Brown

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