W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ppl@w3.org > March 2012

Re: Is the group about "Print and Page Layout" or about XSL-FO ?

From: Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:08:53 -0400
Message-id: <4F593C05.4040503@eastlink.ca>
To: public-ppl@w3.org
+1 for reviewing the CSS specs and XSL-FO spec(s) and looking for
conflicts and agreement.

One of my goals in joining this group is to help formulate a better
message for the raison-d'etre of XSL. I like Ken Holman's
http://www.dpawson.co.uk/xsl/sect3/whyfo.html in Dave's pages; a lot of
that is relevant still if somewhat dated, and maybe we can reuse nuggets
of that.

I know I got frustrated many years ago over the apparent
non-communication between XSL and CSS camps in terms of strategy. It's
disheartening to work on something when other folks appear to be headed
towards duplicating your effort. As a first step in establishing a clear
XSL(-FO) message I figure it makes sense to determine where positive and
negative overlap exists.

Arved

On 12-03-08 03:30 PM, Tony Graham wrote:
> On Thu, March 8, 2012 7:00 pm, Innovimax SARL wrote:
> ...
>> I'm trying to gather people interested into Paginated Layout and hence
>> we'll see how things come
> Count me in.  IMO there are probably few people who use XSL-FO who don't
> also use CSS, though the reverse is not true.  There's also CSS specs in
> the works that deal more with paginated layout, there's CSS formatters,
> there's translators between CSS and XSL-FO, and there's formatters that
> handle both CSS and XSL-FO.
>
> However, I think that if this CG had been proposed as being both for
> XSL-FO and CSS it would have fallen between two stools and gotten less
> uptake than it has.  I'm not opposed to changing the writing on our barn
> wall over time, however.
>
>> I thing that trying to ignore the work done by CSS is a huge mistake (the
>> same W3C has already done with XHTML2 and WhatWG), whether we think the
>> work done is good/finished/usable etc.
> I agree.
>
>> So finding the good fit of each of the different attempt to solve the
>> Print
>> and Page Layout is a good start and seems the natural fit for a Community
>> Group in order to find the "next step"
> One possible role for the CG would be to crowd-source a review of the CSS
> specs and look for commonality/conflict with XSL-FO and its requirements.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Tony.
>
>
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 23:36:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 8 March 2012 23:36:23 GMT