- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:37:15 +0000
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Cc: public-ppl@w3.org
On 20 March 2012 15:16, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> wrote: > On 20/03/2012 07:19, Dave Pawson wrote: >> >> IMHO having a complete schema to validate (even within a syntax >> directed editor) would make things much easier? > > > Dave, I'm not sure what you are pushing for here. As Tony commented you > could compare this to XSLT (not surprisingly given their shared > background) In XSLT you could get rid of structured XPath attributes (as > they can't be validated using pure xml schema languages) and end up with > something like XQueryX instead where everything is exposed at the XML > element level. But why? I'm speaking of authoring at the xsl-fo level David? Not at the XSLT with embedded xsl-fo ? Is that what you meant? > > Making a future XSL-FO incompatible with CSS or with current XSL-FO > would be a big step into the unknown, and it might be walking off a cliff. Different view? The current xsl-fo is half way over the cliff (look at W3C support?) Make it work for users or forget it? regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2012 16:37:48 UTC