- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 07:42:32 +0000
- To: xsl-fo Community Group <public-ppl@w3.org>
On 30 December 2013 11:48, Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net> wrote: > On Sun, December 29, 2013 7:38 pm, Arved Sandstrom wrote: >> An emerging consensus seems to be that we adhere to the name of the >> group and discuss all publishing possibilities. Including your approach. > Until then, please continue to politely and respectfully discuss, agree, > or disagree about the group, its description, the state of print, page > layout, XSL-FO, EPUB, software, publishing (the industry) or publishing > (the activity) so we know more about the issues that concern us, not so we > can divide ourselves into opposing camps. A group simply for discussion seems of little longer term use Tony? I'd rather focus more on scope/deliverables (if any) etc. Perhaps because of history / XSL-FO the emphasis seems to be on page layout which I see as a scope issue. It leaves me twitchy as fixed page layout seems to be a declining publishing target, with variant layout (screens/e-readers etc) rising. On that basis I'd like to bring in scope some definition of the characteristics that would be required to define such an output. Flow seems key, new 'page' definitions, changing with use etc. Key points then, for me. Scope * Publishing (in a very wide sense, not just dead tree publishing) * Content flow (static as well as dynamic) (and re-flow?) Deliverables. Less sure. Perhaps a spec document that makes a stab at defining what a formatting engine needs to meet the scoping needs. Out of scope? Just as important as in scope. Not re-defining CSS. Not re-inventing jscript. Not uplifting XSL. My 2c DaveP -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Tuesday, 31 December 2013 07:42:59 UTC