- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:54:00 +0000
- To: xsl-fo Community Group <public-ppl@w3.org>
Note the phrasing Tony? On 2 January 2014 12:42, Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net> wrote: > On Thu, January 2, 2014 6:49 am, Dave Pawson wrote: >> Just picking up one scope point Arved > ... >> IF (big if without a list of deliverables) we produce something like >> XSL-FO >> from this group, how do you see UI design coming into this groups scope? > > The difficulty I have with saying that we will produce XSL-FO 2.0 or even > a 1.2 is that we have no reasonable expectation that it will be > implemented. I did not say an xsl-fo 2.0, I said, and meant, something similar in tone? I.e. a 'what' type of document, rather than how. W3C have (rightly or wrongly) define xsl-fo as dead today. There has to be a take away from that? With its background and (original) author, that might point to something simpler. > > Expanding on what I just said in reply to Liam, maybe the way forward for > XSL-FO is to produce more tutorials and helper libraries to make XSL-FO > easier for people to adopt? ,,, Maybe... maybe not? Are you thinking of leveraging on current implementations? Lots of syntactic sugar atop XSL-FO? > > Or to SWIG [1] xmlroff or even do Antenna House's work for them and SWIG > AHF just so there's a XSL-FO formatter available to programmers working in > languages other than C or Java? Personal view... Look forward 10 years. Will there still be implementations from which to leverage? No more than a gut feeling, but I just don't think of that as a productive route Tony? regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2014 12:54:29 UTC