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

Christopher R. Maden writes:
 > 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.

I think I would agree, if it were not for the slightly strange way the
W3C works. As I understand it, as soon as (if!) XSL FO is Recommended,
the working group is by definition dissolved, and has to be
rechartered with a new task if it wants to carry on. That means that
we have no formal structure for the future, or indeed any guarentee of
a future.  I have no problem with a list of XSL FO features being
delayed until version 2.0, if a) the list is formally presented and
explained, and b) we had any idea of timetables.

I guess I just want Stephen D to say, explicitly, "sorry, traditional
book formatting with features like variable running heads will not be 
supported in XSL FO 1.0". Then we can plan accordingly.

Sebastian


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