Re: Validating FO

On 21 January 2014 16:43, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 11:00 +0000, Dave Pawson wrote:
>> On 20 January 2014 09:54, Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net> wrote:
>>
>> > XSL-FO 2.0 was following SVG in defining its color functions [2].  Chris
>> > Lilley came to a F2F specifically to talk about colour/color, and we
>> > decided to align with what SVG had.
>>
>> So Chris Lilley says it's OK... Mmm
>
> And I, because an implementation that supports SVG graphics will have a
> hard time with conflicting colour models.
>
> Note that when you're working with print you want different ways to
> specify colour than when you're designing for a screen, and video
> requires yet a third way, so there are good reasons to support multiple
> syntaxes, just as SVG and CSS do.

But mixing them willy nilly all over the place? Start with one and change to
the other half way through specifying? It's a crazy mix Liam.


>
>
>> >>   Mixing lengths is another irregular property set.
>> >
>> > I do it quite often.  From a stylesheet that I happened to have open right
>> > now:
>>
>> That doesn't make it right Tony?
>
> It's pretty common and the facility is designed deeply into XSL-FO.

Which to me doesn't say anything good about XSL-FO?
Just because grandad did it this way doesn't mean we should?


>
> An example - page size is A4 (measured in mm), measure (line length) for
> copy was specified by the designer in picas, and an image that cuts into
> the text is 1 inch wide and two inches high. And you want to make the
> designer use a pocket calculator when the computer can do it just as
> well?

No, just choose one, or the other, for any length spec.
Though the more arcane ones could be lost with little weeping IMHO.

>
>> No. But one thing I would like to do for users is make it easier to use?
>> And in this aspect, ease of validation would make it easier to use?
>>   "What property can I use here" is an oft heard question IMHO
>
> Unfortunately the answer is usually "pretty much any property" :-)
> Including, of course, custom extension properties.

Which I am saying is wrong and a bad design.


>
> XSL-FO wasn't designed as an authoring vocabulary but as a rendering
> vocabulary; this (to me) is a strength over HTML, which can't make up
> its mind which it is.


And we see the result today? W3C members have lost interest.
  Make it more logical and usable and we may find more interest.


regards



-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2014 18:06:59 UTC