W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ppl@w3.org > December 2013

Fwd: Re: Revise group description?

From: Kai Weber <sermo_de_arboribus@seznam.cz>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 20:01:06 +0100 (CET)
Re: Arved's statement on APIs and libraries and Tony's summary of mentioned 
layout technologies, it came to my mind, that I've used PDFlib for 
generating PDFs from a PHP environment. This library also is available with 
language bindings for Cobol, COM, C, C++, Objective C, Java, .NET, Perl, 
Python, REALbasic, RPG, and Ruby, so I guess it could be rather wide-spread 
in the developer community, though I don't have any actual data on that. 
Anyway, I think PDFlib[1] could be another entry in the technology 
listing...

Best regards,
Kai Weber

[1]http://www.pdflib.com/products/pdflib-family/pdflib/


---------- Původní zpráva ----------
Od: Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca>
Datum: 28. 12. 2013
Předmět: Re: Revise group description?

"On 12/28/2013 11:06 AM, Tony Graham wrote:
> On Tue, December 17, 2013 6:19 pm, Jean Kaplansky wrote:
>> I know that most of the activity in this group has been around XSL-FO, 
but
>> I think we might get more interest if we just say:
>>
>> “For people interested in page layout technologies…” rather than
>> explicitly saying XSL-FO.
>>
>> I have a hunch that this may be chasing any but the most hardcore XSL-FO
>> enthusiasts away. We already know that there are a lot of people
>> experimenting with CSS for print, for example. Also while most people
>> think of eBooks as being reflowable, there’s a huge demand for fixed
>> layout pages in eBooks in trade and educational titles. We should try to
>> get some of these people interested in the group.
>>
>> Just my $.02.
>>
>> -Jean K.
>>
>> From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com<mailto:dave.pawson@gmail.com>>
> ...
>> An alternative:
>> the Print & Page Layout Community Group is here to discuss XSL-FO,
>> requirements or other aspects of XML in print.
>>
>> The success of the XSL-FO as a technology shows there's a
>> strong interest in development and implementation. The
>> Print and Page Layout Community Group is intended as a place to
>> build a community of XSL-FO users and raise the
>> visibility of this technology
> I don't think that it is viable for this CG to be only about XSL-FO. I,
> personally, would much rather that this CG was neutral ground rather than
> just the last bastion of XSL-FO. It is, of course, the last bastion of
> XSL-FO just because there is no other, but if that shouldn't be our sole
> purpose.
> [ SNIP ]
Fine post, very useful to me in summarizing issues. I am not intimately 
involved in the print and publishing field: for me it's an incidental 
albeit fairly frequent requirement to produce nicely-formatted stuff on 
paper. By incidental I mean simply that the printing requirement is 
secondary to systems that I am engaged to develop; but that does not 
diminish its importance. After all, people do love their reports. :-)

Name of the game out in the field, apart from publishing-oriented 
systems that I know very little about, developers muckle onto a library 
that works (like iText) or use a built-in for a BI system. A handful of 
folks use TeX/LateX or XSL-FO. If a client happens to have Quark or 
InDesign for some reason you try to use that, not because you want to, 
but the client paid big $$$ for the software.

What I am saying is that like 0.1 percent of all developers on the 
planet have ever heard of most of the technologies and products we are 
talking about here. But a whole whack of developers will be asked at 
some point to produce pretty reports: they will not be using a 
purpose-built high-end publishing app to do it. A successful and 
pervasive approach to print and publishing focuses - IMHO - on libraries 
and APIs for the most popular programming languages. Our major end user 
community here is not professional publishing experts.

XSL-FO still has a chance for the needs of the larger community, I 
think. But it's not being well advertised.

Arved"--=_5fbe89125c1988f129507da614f05d-7b5d-503a-9d22-babcb4583d20_Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><body><br>Re: Arved's statement on APIs and libraries and Tony's summary of mentioned layout technologies, it came to my mind, that I've used PDFlib for generating PDFs from a PHP environment. This library also is available with language bindings for Cobol, COM, C, C++, Objective C, Java, .NET, Perl, <span class="highlight selected"></span>Python, REALbasic, RPG, and Ruby, so I guess it could be rather wide-spread in the developer community, though I don't have any actual data on that. <br>Anyway, I think PDFlib[1] could be another entry in the technology listing...<br><br>Best regards,<br>Kai Weber<br><br>[1]http://www.pdflib.com/products/pdflib-family/pdflib/<br><br><p>---------- Původní zpráva ----------<br>Od: Arved Sandstrom &lt;asandstrom2@eastlink.ca&gt;<br>Datum: 28. 12. 2013<br>Předmět: Re: Revise group description?</p><br><blockquote>On 12/28/2013 11:06 AM, Tony Graham wrote:<br>&gt; On Tue, December 17, 2013 6:19 pm, Jean Kaplansky wrote:<br>&gt;&gt; I know that most of the activity in this group has been around XSL-FO, but<br>&gt;&gt; I think we might get more interest if we just say:<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; “For people interested in page layout technologies…” rather than<br>&gt;&gt; explicitly saying XSL-FO.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; I have a hunch that this may be chasing any but the most hardcore XSL-FO<br>&gt;&gt; enthusiasts away. We already know that there are a lot of people<br>&gt;&gt; experimenting with CSS for print, for example. Also while most people<br>&gt;&gt; think of eBooks as being reflowable, there’s a huge demand for fixed<br>&gt;&gt; layout pages in eBooks in trade and educational titles. We should try to<br>&gt;&gt; get some of these people interested in the group.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; Just my $.02.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; -Jean K.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; From: Dave Pawson &lt;dave.pawson@gmail.com&lt;mailto:dave.pawson@gmail.com&gt;&gt;<br>&gt; ...<br>&gt;&gt; An alternative:<br>&gt;&gt; the Print &amp; Page Layout Community Group is  here to discuss XSL-FO,<br>&gt;&gt; requirements or other aspects of XML in print.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; The success of the XSL-FO as a technology shows there's a<br>&gt;&gt; strong interest in development and  implementation. The<br>&gt;&gt; Print and Page Layout Community Group is intended as a place to<br>&gt;&gt; build a  community of XSL-FO users and  raise the<br>&gt;&gt; visibility of this  technology<br>&gt; I don't think that it is viable for this CG to be only about XSL-FO.  I,<br>&gt; personally, would much rather that this CG was neutral ground rather than<br>&gt; just the last bastion of XSL-FO.  It is, of course, the last bastion of<br>&gt; XSL-FO just because there is no other, but if that shouldn't be our sole<br>&gt; purpose.<br>&gt; [ SNIP ]<br>Fine post, very useful to me in summarizing issues. I am not intimately <br>involved in the print and publishing field: for me it's an incidental <br>albeit fairly frequent requirement to produce nicely-formatted stuff on <br>paper. By incidental I mean simply that the printing requirement is <br>secondary to systems that I am engaged to develop; but that does not <br>diminish its importance. After all, people do love their reports. :-)<br><br>Name of the game out in the field, apart from publishing-oriented <br>systems that I know very little about, developers muckle onto a library <br>that works (like iText) or use a built-in for a BI system. A handful of <br>folks use TeX/LateX or XSL-FO. If a client happens to have Quark or <br>InDesign for some reason you try to use that, not because you want to, <br>but the client paid big $$$ for the software.<br><br>What I am saying is that like 0.1 percent of all developers on the <br>planet have ever heard of most of the technologies and products we are <br>talking about here. But a whole whack of developers will be asked at <br>some point to produce pretty reports: they will not be using a <br>purpose-built high-end publishing app to do it. A successful and <br>pervasive approach to print and publishing focuses - IMHO - on libraries <br>and APIs for the most popular programming languages. Our major end user <br>community here is not professional publishing experts.<br><br>XSL-FO still has a chance for the needs of the larger community, I <br>think. But it's not being well advertised.<br><br>Arved</blockquote></body></html>--=_5fbe89125c1988f129507da614f05d-7b5d-503a-9d22-babcb4583d20_=--
Received on Saturday, 28 December 2013 19:01:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:57:25 UTC