Re: Prerequisites for modifying XSL 2.0 spec or producing API

On 12 February 2013 15:00, Tony Graham <> wrote:
> On Tue, February 12, 2013 2:46 pm, Liam R E Quin wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 14:21 +0000, Tony Graham wrote:
>>>    Since the XPPL WG is/was a closed group, we would strictly
>>>    speaking need Liam or someone within the W3C to make the last
>>>    draft public and/or bless our use of it
>> Go ahead, but you and Dave need to check in any changes to CVS that you
>> might have made since the last public draft.
> Thanks.  That counts as sufficient go-ahead to me.
>>> and we'd need the
>>>    infrastructure maintainers to make a Mercurial repository for
>>>    us.
>> I'm not sure about this one; I'll try and find out today; I'm in a
>> Workshop so might take a couple of days.
> It's offered at
>> It would also be a good idea to see if developers from Antenna House,
>> RenderX, FOP, are watching (I know that Inventive Designers and xmlroff
>> are here!). In other words, who is likely to implement anything that is
> Also FOP.
>> done here?
> That is the crux of the problem.
> I guess another prerequisite is user expectation that XSL-FO can do
> whatever we spec, so that users can pressure vendors to implement it.  In
> a recent conversation with a vendor, I was told that their users had never
> asked for or about upcoming features from the WD.

+1  We need to put forward user requirements (as clean requirements / use case)
then seek comment from implementers, before we mark a document as
'fit for use' or whatever phrase we come up with.

I'm doubtful of some of the requirements and would like to run over them
again with more users, but that is just a personal viewpoint.


Dave Pawson
Docbook FAQ.

Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 16:04:40 UTC