W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xsl-fo@w3.org > December 2010

Re: Section 6.2, Formatting Object Content [Was: 1.1 xml rec]

From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:41:30 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTinsCsFpENo_zpwD2eBz+-watN6AGMg03Gu0PMu-@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tony Graham <Tony.Graham@menteithconsulting.com>
Cc: www-xsl-fo@w3.org
On 6 December 2010 16:07, Tony Graham
<Tony.Graham@menteithconsulting.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 05 2010 16:03:53 +0000, dave.pawson@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
>> Re the parameter entities.
>> 6.2 defines them textually, but there is no xml definition of them?
>> That would be a nice addition for automated processing.
>> Either as XML for an inclusion or as xml entities.
> It was perhaps a bit odd to call them "parameter entities" without
> providing declarations, but the concept and the reference syntax is
> familiar to many users of XML.
> Also, there is no official schema or DTD for XSL 1.1, so I'd say there
> wasn't much reason to put in the declarations when there was no schema.

Just to aid processing of the rec through to other usable forms.

> FWIW, RenderX has three goes at a XSL FO schema or validators at
> http://www.renderx.com/tools/validators.html. Their XML Europe 2004
> paper [1] referred to from that page has a good summary of the issues
> you face in making a schema for XSL FO (and of the trade-offs they had
> to make).  Like Dave, they favour having multiple, looser and stricter
> schema for XSL FO.

And they stopped at 1.0?

Nothing available for 1.1 at all.
  Despite (IMHO) its usefulness.


Dave Pawson
Docbook FAQ.
Received on Monday, 6 December 2010 16:41:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:33 UTC