- From: Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2014 11:45:15 -0400
- To: public-ppl@w3.org
On a sidenote, Tony, I am personally a fan of SWIG: http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.macperl/2003/09/msg2874.html. :-) Dunno if SWIG is the answer, though, although it's something to consider. At the same time I was associated with FOP I wrote an XSL-FO formatter in Perl that captured quite a lot of the spec: that took less than a calendar month. I obviously had the significant advantage of knowing the spec very well, but I'd still say, based on that - and general experience - that writing XSL-FO formatters from scratch for a few more important languages could well be better than SWIG. I think you hit on a central point, which is education: tutorials, for example. XSL-FO is not suffering low rates of adoption because it's more difficult to use than other technologies, it's suffering because it hasn't been sold that well. Arved On 01/02/2014 08:42 AM, Tony Graham 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. > > 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? > > 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? > > Regards, > > > Tony. > > [1] http://swig.org/ > > > >
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2014 15:45:49 UTC