Re: Does the Crystal Goblet apply?

On 01/04/2014 08:20 PM, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-01-04 at 14:23 +0000, Dave Pawson wrote:
>> O
>> I'm not proposing solutions, just options. In this case
>> some form of simpler syntax / terminology. I hope you'll agree
>> that CSS syntax (if not semantics) is easier than FO?
> In some ways CSS is simpler and some ways not.
>
> There are huge numbers of properties, plus formatter-specific
> extensions, and the 60+ different CSS specs interact with each other in
> sometimes complex ways. There are limitations and restrictions and
> non-orthogonalities galore.
>
> CSS syntax is being cleaned up, but I think some of the simplicity is
> deceptive, because it doesn't do as much as FO. Some of the complexity
> of FO comes (unfortunately) from the spec -- the language and the way
> the examples prefix everything needlessly with fo: is off-putting to
> some people. Specs are meant for implementers, but also for writers of
> articles, books, courses, and I think the XSL-FO spec wasn't good for
> that second, larger audience. The CSS specs are better in that regard.
>
> So I do think there's a lot of mileage to be had in FO tutorials and
> examples - when Tony mentioned SWIG I thought at first he was referring
> to the success of the semantic web interest group in doing that sort of
> outreach :)
>
> There might also be a lot of mileage in translations (whether in XSLT or
> otherhow) from CSS into FO, so that e.g. people could use xmlroff or fop
> with a CSS syntax.  Some constructs might be tricky to translate - e.g.
> static content on page masters is very different, and can be dynamic in
> HTML+CSS (but is not so easy to position where you want it).
>
> Liam
>
This is a fine summary. OK, I think it's fine because I substantively 
agree with all of it. :-)

The thoughts in that last para are interesting. There may be something 
in that - I myself believe that CSS is roughly as complex and difficult 
as XSL-FO (albeit in different ways), but there's no question that 
orders of magnitude more people use CSS...in my opinion because way more 
programmers deal with web pages than print, XSL-FO is about print, and 
CSS is still mostly a web thing.

Arved

Received on Sunday, 5 January 2014 00:45:53 UTC