- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 06:25:34 +0000
- To: xsl-fo Community Group <public-ppl@w3.org>
On 18 December 2013 22:44, Michael Hahn <xmlronin@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd like to add a couple of niche products from the 90s - > > Omnimark: SGML/XML to HTML or RTF > > WordPerfect SGML/XML tools: DSSSL-like stylesheet language for the built-in > print engine. Which introduces a scope issue? Should this group scope its work to include / exclude transformations? DSSSL had transform/layout, as did XSL (initially). My view, XSLT does a good job. Keep it out of scope. > > I say a lot of PDF is for screen display, but I don't see a large percentage > sized to displays - it's usually either US Letter/A4 or continuous display. > The predilection for "paper-sized" PDF either means it's meant for print, or > just laziness. Which again raises the idea of 'size to display'? In or out of scope? Re-flow for the screen size? Ignore pagination? Have pages at one page per screen? What alternatives? How would XSL 2.0 look if ebook readers were a target device? regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Thursday, 19 December 2013 06:26:16 UTC