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

Re: Prince XML vs Docbook

Subject: Re: Prince XML vs Docbook
From: "Michele R Combs mrrothen@xxxxxxx" <xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 16:25:15 -0000
Re:  Prince XML vs Docbook
Don't forget indexes, which use page numbers for locators.  No doubt the
presence of an index would complicate things as well.

Michele

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles O'Connor coconnor@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 10:57 AM
To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re:  Prince XML vs Docbook

I'm not as savvy as you folks, but having done some work with XML workflows in
STM publishing, I see several factors that keep publishers from getting behind
either FO or CSS solutions.



First is an attachment to nearly un-automatable print-legacy layout: pages
that have four or five elements that need to grow or shrink in relation to
each other, 3-column ragged right pages in a journal with equations, all sorts
of content that needs to go into footers and margins, footnotes that start on
page 1 but, if too long, may continue in a space above the references. By the
time you mention multi-pass processing, people have left the room.



Second is lack of an easily editable intermediate format, both for problem
solving and for tweaking. Someone with a few hours of experience in InDesign
can break an equation or move a figure from page 3 to page 2, and they can do
it in a few minutes. Solving the same problems in automated systems is more
difficult and requires a rarer skill set.



Third is the variability of input, which others have already mentioned, and
how it interacts with the first two issues.



That said, I've seen some dirt-simple layouts that still use 3B2 (or whatever
it's called now). My impression is that publishers don't want to give up the
safety net that cheap offshore typesetting gives them.



-Charles



*****************************************



From: Michael Kay mike@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 2:02 PM

To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: Re:  Prince XML vs Docbook





On 18 Jan 2018, at 17:06, Eliot Kimber mailto:ekimber@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:xsl-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Therebs no inherent reason CSS pagination has to be mediocre.

B 

My observation is itbs another case of simply not having enough resources
available to get the work done.



I think you've just given the inherent reason. Getting the resources to do a
high quality job for people with high-end requirements requires significant
investment. Getting the resources to do a mediocre job (by which I mean, to
satisfy the needs of those who aren't very fussy) is much easier.



(I wasn't trying to suggest there's any architectural problem with a CSS-based
solution. Just that the economics always favours meeting the 50% of the
requirements that are enough to satisfy 90% of the users, and stopping there.)



Michael Kay

Saxonica

http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list

-list/2963104 ()

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.