[XSL-LIST Mailing List Archive Home]
[By Thread]
[By Date]
Paul T vs FO
Subject: Paul T vs FO From: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 09:59:57 +0100 |
Paul Tchistopolskii writes: > I'm not saying is something a crime or not, but I'm sure that few smart > people can produce some useful set of formatting objects *much* faster > than it takes W3C to do that. and yet the fact remains that they haven't done so. fine words butter no parsnips, as my mother used to say. I am as critical of XSL FO as the next man, but a) Its (nearly) here. I can typeset decent pages with it, in several implementations. I can, in fact, produce more pages with it than the revolutionary LinusFO ('cos that don't exist yet). b) We'll never solve the problems of automated typesetting until we get some systems to play with. You don't know yet that XSL FO cannot deliver, because we don't have enough experience in using the model it inherited from DSSSL > I'm sure that 'alternative XSL FO' will > gonna happen *anyway*, no matter what will be the progress > in XSL FO WG. Time will expalin why I'm making this statement. Your argument is predicated on the arrival of a Linus on the scene. That might happen tomorrow, it might happen in 5 years, you can't predict. There is, of course, a lot more to LinusFO than technical correctness! Sebastian XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Updated Benchmark Available, Paul Tchistopolskii | Thread | Re: Paul T vs FO, Paul Tchistopolskii |
RE: returning single result from ap, DPawson | Date | RE: Standard problem?, Kay Michael |
Month |
Keywords