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

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

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:15:57 -0600
Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010214091542.010b6d60@notesmail.arbortext.com>
To: <www-xsl-fo@w3.org>
At 19:51 2001 02 13 -0400, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>Boy, do I ever agree about this one. This syntax is shorthand for whose
>benefit? The typical user is going to mangle this kind of shorthand at least
>half the time by putting things in the wrong order.
>
>If it's more verbose and broken out into components it's easier to read and
>easier to handle. I.e. we stick with extended conformance & no shorthands.
>
>This is a shorthand for writers of CSS, is what it is. FO preparers don't
>handcode FO: but a lot of CSS stylesheets _are_ handcoded (maybe most). So
>we're looking at a dubious (error-prone) labour-saving device for writers of
>CSS stylesheets being fobbed off on FO. IMO.

I think many (most?) of the folks on the XSL FO SG agree with this.
That's one reason we put shortcuts in the highest level of conformance.

Instead of just complaining, why don't all of us implementors who 
are complaining about them don't implement them (since they aren't 
required except for the highest level of conformance)--problem solved.

paul (speaking just for myself....)

>Regards,
>Arved Sandstrom
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@computing-services.oxford.ac.uk>
>To: <davidc@nag.co.uk>
>Cc: <pgrosso@arbortext.com>; <www-xsl-fo@w3.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:51 PM
>Subject: Re: Using an XSL Formatter as an XSL-FO Web Browser
>>
>> And I still think that 'font="10pt Helvetica bold"' is horrible in
>> anyone's book. Thats not a shorthand, its plain laziness!
>`border-style=solid' I find more comprehensible.
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2001 10:16:02 GMT

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