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

Fwd: Re: Customer requirement, a critque

From: Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:39:29 -0400
Message-id: <512ACEE1.90502@eastlink.ca>
To: public-ppl@w3.org

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: Customer requirement, a critque
Resent-Date: 	Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:32:26 +0000
Resent-From: 	public-ppl@w3.org
Date: 	Sun, 24 Feb 2013 19:31:55 +0100
From: 	Patrick Gundlach <gundlach@speedata.de>
To: 	xsl-fo Community Group <public-ppl@w3.org>



Am 24.02.2013 um 17:00 schrieb Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>:

> On 24 February 2013 14:26, Patrick Gundlach <gundlach@speedata.de> wrote:
>
>>>> I am not sure why you use the term "fo:blocks". As far as I know, this is not a special FO community. The Customer requirements are independent of a special technology.
>>>
>>> I relate requirements to the xsl-fo wd. Hence requirements are for
>>> implementation against that document
>>> or a later version of it.
>>
>> I think that most of the requirements are not solvable with any current or future version of XSL-FO, unless XSL-FO changes in a dramatic way.
>
> Which is why we are here? to specify those changes?
>
> Or are we here for different reasons?

I am not here to specify changes to XSL-FO 1.1.
I am here to discuss how we can meet current typesetting / layout demands. I believe thinking in FO terms just blocks our mind to get to the point where we should head.

Don't know about the others. This is (of course) my very own personal motivation.
[ SNIP ]

My motivation is yours. The goal is typesetting/layout demands. Where I differ is that I think we can make it happen with FO.

AHS
Received on Monday, 25 February 2013 02:40:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 25 February 2013 02:40:00 GMT