- From: Michael Hahn <xmlronin@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 09:01:47 -0600
- To: public-ppl@w3.org
On 2/24/2013 8:51 AM, Tony Graham wrote: > If we made FOs (or API functions) for those specific actions, yes, it > would be too specific to be generally useful. So for now, it's probably > best to treat it as indicative of the sort of thing that real-world > customers can want: you and I may not find pictures of brake discs to be > particularly interesting, but some people obviously do, and Patrick's > client has presumably wanted it organised in a way that would be most > useful for selling to disc-brake fans. And back in the good old, good old > days, that would have been done by pasting down lots of little photos of > brake discs and little snippets of text, taking a photo of it all, and > sending that off to the commercial printer. We probably can't standardise > everything you used to regularly do with a scalpel and a pot of glue, but > that doesn't mean that it's already time to limit our options. <delurk/> I've been watching this discussion with some interest. With my consultant hat on, I realize there are clients/customers out there who have very specific requirements that XSL-FO alone currently can't satisfy. On the other hand, my current day job finds me responsible for producing approximately 30,000 pages a month, completely lights-out, and XSL-FO 1.1 is able to satisfy all the requirements needed for that operation. "XSL-FO is a dead end"? No, not from where I sit. It's another very useful tool in the toolbox. Could improvements be made? Of course - but let's not forget about those folks like me. <relurk/> -- ================================================================ Michael R. Hahn Phone: 1-316-285-0762 ---------------------------------------------------------------- michael@alphabyauthor.com Fax: 1-316-239-2553 ================================================================
Received on Sunday, 24 February 2013 22:51:24 UTC