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

Re: Schema noise.

From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 08:20:25 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTimT2NMnQ=0TNf2uMqGNFGB1F7rZzi5KW5+KXvuE@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-xsl-fo@w3.org
On 6 December 2010 17:56, Tony Graham
<Tony.Graham@menteithconsulting.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06 2010 14:49:26 +0000, dave.pawson@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 6 December 2010 14:38, Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com> wrote:
>>>> Two uses for a  schema.
>>>> 1. When writing an fo tree I only need what is reasonable/implemented.
>>> Given inheritance, it is reasonable to have any property on any
>>> (non-empty) element.
>> Lets just differ on that one Paul.
> I think you're using different yardsticks for 'reasonable': because
> inheritance exists, it's reasonable to Paul that it works everywhere;
> because including inheritable properties clutters schema-directed
> editing, it's not always reasonable to Dave.

Thanks Tony. I've never said it's wrong, just that for 'schema directed
editing' it's a darned nuisance!

>>   When I want editor help to write an fo file
>> I don't want all the inheritance elements presented.
> It's becoming hard for me to separate where you're finding fault with
> concepts in XSL (e.g., property inheritance), the way the spec is
> written (e.g., whether or not there's parameter entity declarations), or
> the act of authoring XSL FO in a schema-directed editor.

My original request was for the WG to add an XML definition
of those entities, simply to enable easier working with the XML?
That's the only part (that I've found so far) that stops automated
processing of the XML version of the rec.
That issue is separate from my comments about inheritance.

> You use property inheritance but you don't like it because of what it
> does to the editing experience?  Isn't that then a marketing opportunity
> for a better XSL FO editor rather than a fault with the spec?

I'm not complaining about the spec Tony.
And I'm not looking for a marketing opportunity.


> I don't know that that level of GUIness is what you'd what to use, but
> would a better editor ease some of your frustration that every property
> can be present on every FO element?

That 'frustration' as you call it is the itch I'm trying to scratch.

I'll put in a bugzilla comment about the entities.


Dave Pawson
Docbook FAQ.
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 2010 08:20:54 UTC

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