Re: Notes on Comparison of XSL FO Renderers

Hello Mr. Graham,

Thank you for your suggestion. I will revise the presentation method
in the next version.

Best Regards,

Tokushige Kobayashi


> Reply to the original mail from:
>  xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>


A single percentage for implementation level is too broad a
categorisation to be useful.  The XSL 1.0 Recommendation defines three
conformance levels, and it would be more useful to present the
implementation levels broken up by conformance level.  Showing that
multiple implementations have 100% or close to 100% for 'Basic'
conformance would be a good thing for boosting public confidence in
XSL interoperability.  Hiding the common level of 'Basic' conformance
shows XSL interoperability as worse than it really is and will
discourage any people who won't adopt XSL unless there's
interoperability.

Regards,


Tony Graham
------------------------------------------------------------------------
XML Technology Center - Dublin
Sun Microsystems Ireland Ltd                       Phone: +353 1 8199708
Hamilton House, East Point Business Park, Dublin 3            x(70)19708

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




Tokushige Kobayashi
Antenna House, Inc.
E-mail koba@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW    http://www.antenna.co.jp/XML/xml-top.htm
WWW    http://www.antennahouse.com/xslformatter.html (English)
TEL    +81-3-3234-1361(direct call)
FAX    +81-3-3221-9975

Antenna House XSL School
http://www.antenna.co.jp/XML/school/xslday.htm



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