Re: foo ... bar Re: Q: XML+XSL transforms to a print-ready f

[Sebastian Rahtz]
>If the WG say about running heads "don't worry your pretty heads,
>we'll put in something to solve the problem", that'll do just fine. If
>they say "sorry, its beyond the scope of XSL FO", thats also fine (but
>a pity), I am not forced to use XSL FO. BUT if they say, "traditional
>book layouts are within our remit, but we cannot work out a spec
>because we want to get the proposal out before Christmas", then I cry
>"shame on you!". Bringing out an incomplete XSL FO (_according to its
>own spec_) would be a disaster (in my opinion).

I wouldn't necessarily think so.  Getting a solid foundation out would be
no sin, especially given how delayed it already is.  As long as the initial
cut doesn't interfere with future expansion, I don't think there's anything
wrong with releasing a spec in phases.  Making people who want a scrolled
document wait until running heads can be properly specified just doesn't
make sense.

-Chris

--
Christopher R. Maden, Solutions Architect
Exemplary Technologies
One Embarcadero Center, Ste. 2405
San Francisco, CA 94111



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