Re: Does the Crystal Goblet apply?

On Sat, 2014-01-04 at 14:23 +0000, Dave Pawson wrote:
> O
> I'm not proposing solutions, just options. In this case
> some form of simpler syntax / terminology. I hope you'll agree
> that CSS syntax (if not semantics) is easier than FO?

In some ways CSS is simpler and some ways not.

There are huge numbers of properties, plus formatter-specific
extensions, and the 60+ different CSS specs interact with each other in
sometimes complex ways. There are limitations and restrictions and
non-orthogonalities galore.

CSS syntax is being cleaned up, but I think some of the simplicity is
deceptive, because it doesn't do as much as FO. Some of the complexity
of FO comes (unfortunately) from the spec -- the language and the way
the examples prefix everything needlessly with fo: is off-putting to
some people. Specs are meant for implementers, but also for writers of
articles, books, courses, and I think the XSL-FO spec wasn't good for
that second, larger audience. The CSS specs are better in that regard.

So I do think there's a lot of mileage to be had in FO tutorials and
examples - when Tony mentioned SWIG I thought at first he was referring
to the success of the semantic web interest group in doing that sort of
outreach :)

There might also be a lot of mileage in translations (whether in XSLT or
otherhow) from CSS into FO, so that e.g. people could use xmlroff or fop
with a CSS syntax.  Some constructs might be tricky to translate - e.g.
static content on page masters is very different, and can be dynamic in
HTML+CSS (but is not so easy to position where you want it).

Liam

-- 
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml

Received on Sunday, 5 January 2014 00:20:50 UTC