W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ppl@w3.org > February 2013

Re: my approach on paged media

From: Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:32:13 -0400
Message-id: <5117934D.9030106@eastlink.ca>
To: public-ppl@w3.org
My suggestion is, following on from my previous posts, let's take 2 or 3 
formatting-feedback use cases, sufficiently different, and figure out 
what combination of new FO and/or programmatic hooks (API) would be 
reasonable to allow feedback and actions. By actions I mean alternative 
paths based on feedback, to keep it simple - it could of course get more 
complex.

It seems to me that we're here to define common APIs and to advance XSL 
x.x (iow, not target a specific existing version, although 2.0 would be 
good).

Arved

On 02/10/2013 08:10 AM, Dave Pawson wrote:
> On 10 February 2013 11:59, Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, February 10, 2013 11:26 am, Patrick Gundlach wrote:
>>> I'll write something up and put it into the wiki.
>>>
>>> 1) What kind of problems do we deal in day to day work?
>>> 2) My layout language "specification"
>>>
>>> So we can discuss it and compare it to the requirements of XSL-FO 2.0
>> and/or CSS 3
>>
>> Thanks, that would be good food for thought.
>>
>>> Hope to be finished end of next week.
>> But now that we're awake, we don't need to go back to sleep until Patrick
>> has put something up.  Are we here to shore-up XSL 1.1 (as seemed to me to
>> be a concern when we started), to define common APIs, to advance XSL 2.0
>> in the absence of anywhere else doing it, to try to build bridges with CSS
>> paged media work, or what?
> A concern is that, since few/no W3C members are interested, what to do
> with requirements/ideas for further developments?
>
> One option would be a post (long term?) from this group.
>
> What other options are there?
>
> regards
>
>
>
>
Received on Sunday, 10 February 2013 12:32:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 10 February 2013 12:32:41 GMT