Cart
|
[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XSL-FO versus PostScript
 but there's no *inherent* limitation in the ability of FO-based systems to produce typographic results as good as those produced by any other system. Actually, I was thinking of things like line breaking and character spacing, not area positioning. You are of course correct that without feedback from the paginator to the FO generator, there are certain layout problems that cannot be solved by an automatic system. [...] I'm a bit confused here because I seem to be agreeing with your whole message including this bit, which seems to not agree with teh "inherent limitation" qute above, unless you mn that these feedback issues could be fixed in a revised spec? Yes--on the EXSLFO list I've discussed several possible low-cost solutions to this limitation, 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 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
