W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xsl-fo@w3.org > February 2001

Re: Using an XSL Formatter as an XSL-FO Web Browser

From: Dave Pawson <daveP@dpawson.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 17:12:31 +0000
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010210170530.00b2add0@127.0.0.1>
To: <www-xsl-fo@w3.org>
At 04:02 PM 2/10/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote:

>Taken at face value I think it makes some good points. I like the suggestion
>that general XSL "things" not be called "stylesheets", because they aren't;
>so I've been pushing that idea rather strongly myself. I like the idea that
>FO documents should contain a link back to their source

Which is fine for a permanently on source, but for someone with a dial-up
cnx? For that reason only, I think this is only a partial solution.
(Then there is the case of the 'full' xml, from which you only get
a part as media X. Again flawed?)


>...also, even if
>processing XSLT+XSL-FO together cannot be rigidly enforced it can still be
>strongly encouraged.

Which is generally the W3C position.
> In general I agree that delivering FO to Web clients
>(or really, any disconnected client, say FO via SMTP or JMS) isn't a great
>idea.
Agreed.



>One of the reasons I have problems with this article, and others along the
>same vein, is that it's written with a mindset that everything XML has to do
>with the Web.

The number of XML 'applications' as they are being called, backs this position!


> And there are some of
>us, myself included, that think the primary role of FO is to do one thing
>and do that well - support XML-based high-quality printing. Which again has
>nothing to do with the Web.

Or audio? Not quite print, but Media/sense X specific (eyes, ears)




>With all due respect to Håkon Lie, I look at the progress of CSS within the
>Style Sheets Activity, particularly the goals of CSS3, and I wonder if the
>real sentiments aren't nevertheless "Formatting Objects considered
>harmful...period". I expect to see another article soon that says
>"Formatting Objects considered harmful for printing" - it's not much of a
>stretch to take the same arguments and attack FO right across the board.
>Considering the fact that CSS3 is proclaiming itself as "a complete desktop
>publishing system", with aggressive moves into areas that (to me , anyway,
>maybe I'm a suspicious SOB) sure look like they don't have much to do with
>Web browsers, and I start thinking that maybe not everyone is on the same
>sheet of music. I very much doubt that you'll find CSS people evangelizing
>about Web delivery of XSLT+XSL-FO, which prima facie should address concerns
>addressed in the article. Point being, if it's in the same space as CSS
>(which is huge, and getting bigger...it's unwieldy now) then it's a Bad
>Thing.

Now there's a new take.
And look how the XSL WG bent over backwards (far too far backwards IMHO)
to 'accommodate' CSS semantics?




> FWIW this is not an attack on XSL WG folks...I'm
>guessing you guys maybe are forced to do some things that maybe don't feel
>quite right just because you're part of W3C (no need to answer :-))

Doesn't apply to members Arved :-)


>I think FO will do very nicely if we don't copy CSS mistakes, which is to
>try to do everything. If we settle on a simple, well-defined mission, and do
>it really well, then we're cool.


I hope (and think) you're right on this one!

Regards DaveP
Received on Saturday, 10 February 2001 12:14:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 October 2007 16:06:08 GMT