[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful

Subject: Re: Formatting Objects considered harmful
From: "Paul Tchistopolksii" <paul@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1999 11:06:37 -0700
css vs fo
...
>
>I'm strongly in favor splitting "XSL" into a "pure" transformation language
>plus something else.  CSS1/2/3 are much farther along than FOs, and it does
>seem strange for W3C to have two formatting efforts underway.  One of the
>many advantages of creating a distinct "XTL" is that the CSS vs. FO
>tradeoffs could be addressed head on, without the distraction of
>transformation issues.


I strongly agree. However, I see another advantage of splitting - it
comes from FO part itself.

I have done some experiements with rendering FO to CSS and it
seems to me that even FO is ( kind of ) superset of CSS, there are
some small things that make developer's life much harder than it
could be.

Why should I map 'space-after' to 'margin-bottom'? Realy, I don't
underdstand if there is any technical reason for separating CSS
from FO...  they are *so* close... I appreciate the efforts that XSL
workgroup did trying to syncronize FO with CSS, but unfortunately,
it seems that here is the area when 70% syncronization is not
much better than 50% syncronization, because only 99%
matters. ....

<EXAMPLE>
In our existing world if you want to create *realy* *good*  HTML page
you should sometimes ( maybe it's better to say "always") create
2 different versions of the same HTML page for IE and
Netscape. Unfortunately, a couple of small-but-different things can
sometimes 'kill' significant efforts.
</EXAMPLE>

I feel that existing versions of CSS and FO are not syncronized
'enough'.

<DESIGN>

<WHY>
If comparing XML/CSS with XML/XSL,

CSS is better because of:
1. Simplicity.

XSL is better because of:
1. Transformation part.
2. Some small differences ( line-spacing ;-) in FO part.
( well, 'small'  is relative, but most of formatting functionality
is common for FO and CSS ;-)
</WHY>

<SUGGESTION>
a.  Let's have transformation part separated from FO part
(well... we *already* have  XT ;-)

b. I think making XFO to be CSS + "some XSL-specific
small things, easy recognizable by name" would be
better than situation we have now with those 2
same-but-different formatting engines.
</SUGGESTION>

<RISK>
Unfortunately, strong adjusting CSS to FO and *back* may
be a bit painful, but from my point of view it would be worth the
efforts.
</RISK>

</DESIGN>

Rgds.Paul.

http://www.pault.com
paul@xxxxxxx




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


Current Thread

PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.