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

RE: XSL-FO versus PostScript

Subject: RE: XSL-FO versus PostScript
From: "Roger Glover" <glover_roger@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:36:31 -0600
typesetting postscript translator download
J.Pietschmann wrote:

> Zack Brown wrote:
> > So, to sum up your argument, PostScript does give more power,
> > but XSL-FO makes some things (footnotes, page number alignment,
> > etc) easy, that PostScript has no basic provisions for?
> Yes. PS is, in general lower level than XSLFO, you can position
> individual strings and graphic elements (=more power), but it lacks
> higher abstractions (margins, indentations, borders, justification,
> alignment, floats, page numbering, hyphenation and some more)

Right.  Most PostScript documents include a large preamble called a
dictionary (think "library").  The dictionary typically defines much of that
higher level of abstraction, depending on the generator.


> > ...but I wonder if there are any PostScript subroutine libraries out
> > there that try to bridge that gap. A quick google search didn't find
> > any.
> No surprise. Just try a "Hello world" yourself...

Actually, you might try looking for "dictionaries" instead of "libraries".


> >>inherited from CSS (the most notable immediate predecessor).
> >
> > I think TeX came before CSS. That's what I used in the
> early/mid 90's. It
> > was really great, but very rigid in ways that seemed arbitrary (like not
> > using memory that was available on the system, even when the alternative
> > was to terminate without completing its task).  In spite of its flaws it
> > was very powerful and even beautiful in its way.
>
> I wrote *immediate* predecessor for a reason, CSS was taken as starting
> point for XSLFO and is still quite explicitely referred.

I seem to recall the lineage being more from DSSSL than from CSS, but I
suppose I could be wrong.


> TeX was certainly one of the poineering applications in computerized
> typesetting, and in fact virtually every modern typesetting system
> still draws on the line breaking, filling, hyphenation and math expression
> typesetting algorithms first hammered out for TeX.

Which, of course, borrowed same from *it's* predecessors, including Runoff
on DEC systems, GML on IBM mainframes, and [nt]roff on UNIX systems.  These
in turn borrowed greatly from electronic typesetting machines


> However, TeX did not
> provide many good abstractions above paragraphs and formulas. It's
> strength was (and still is) that it's basically a programming language
> with a good run time library for typesetting. This allowed building many
> interesting abstractions on top of it. In fact, I think packages like
> LaTeX were a major milestone in the development of semantic markup and
> therefore in the lineage of XML.

While LaTex was certainly much easier to learn and use than the
aforementioned tools, I don't think it broke ground in any major new
functional areas.


-- Roger Glover
   glover_roger@xxxxxxxxx



 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.