- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2014 13:14:50 +0000
- To: xsl-fo Community Group <public-ppl@w3.org>
On 4 January 2014 12:47, Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net> wrote: > On Thu, January 2, 2014 3:45 pm, Arved Sandstrom wrote: >> 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. > > And if it's not officially part of the OWP and if the W3C is concerned > about pushing the CSS 'brand', it won't be sold at all by the W3C. > > Writing tutorials and 'interface' libraries doesn't have the cachet of > writing a new spec, but it may be more practical at this point. However, > I don't know how well it fits with your (I think) earlier point that > developers don't grok XSLT to begin with or with Kai's point about ending > up having to tweak the FO files by hand. Backing up a bit. Arved has a valid point here. IMHO DSSSL bombed (at least partially) due to lack of 'education' (read usable documentation). XSL-FO was written by the same person, with the same intellect, using not dissimilar jargon/terminology? Is there mileage in looking at syntactic sugar for FO? Generate some 'simpler' user interface or means of generating FO and present that along with educational material? Just a thought for the new year. .... What it omits is the "FO doesn't do fancy" that some users want. -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Saturday, 4 January 2014 13:15:17 UTC