Re: Position on further standardisation of XSL-FO?

Aleksandr,

Thank you for your response.  You are only the second XSL-FO vendor to
respond to the further standardisation question, so no-one is going to
complain about any delay on your part.

We all have our own time constraints, but there's also no current
standardisation effort for you to participate in.  The purpose of the
previous question was to gauge vendor perspectives since there's an
apparent disconnect between the expectations of users as shown in the
survey responses and the actions of vendors.

You and your organisation are, of course, welcome to join the Print and
Page Layout Community Group and participate as time allows, since XSL-FO
is one part of what we are interested in here.

Regards,


Tony Graham                                         tgraham@mentea.net
Consultant                                       http://www.mentea.net
Chair, Print and Page Layout Community Group @ W3C    XML Guild member
  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --
Mentea       XML, XSL-FO and XSLT consulting, training and programming

On Fri, March 7, 2014 7:34 am, Aleksandr Komrakov wrote:
> Dear Tony,
>
> Sorry for not getting back sooner.
>
> We as a software developer are obviously in favor of further development
> and standardization of XSL-FO. Unfortunately we are unable to actively
> participate on further development given the time constraint.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Please let me know if you have any further questions.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Alexander Komrakov
> Altsoft bvba | Altsoft s.r.o.
> http://www.alt-soft.com
>
> Altsoft Outsourcing Services
> http://outsourcing.alt-soft.com/
>
> Mobile: +32486835307
> alexander@alt-soft.com
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net> wrote:
>
>> Your organisation makes and sells software based partially or
>> exclusively
>> on XSL-FO, yet the W3C XML Print and Page Layout Working Group, which
>> was
>> developing XSL-FO 2.0, did not have its charter renewed in 2013 because
>> of
>> insufficient participation [1], leaving no path for further development
>> of
>> the standard on which your software is based.
>>
>> The Print and Page Layout Community Group at W3C [2] recently ran a
>> survey
>> [4] about what it should do next.  The results of that showed a strong
>> level of support from people both inside and outside the CG for further
>> development of XSL-FO specifications, either as XSL-FO 2.0, a XSL-FO
>> 1.2,
>> or as modules layered on top of XSL 1.1.
>>
>> Do you and your organisation have a position on the further
>> standardisation of XSL-FO at the W3C or elsewhere, as a Community Group,
>> Business Group [3], or full Working Group?
>>
>> Please include public-ppl@w3.org in any reply.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Tony Graham                                         tgraham@mentea.net
>> Consultant                                       http://www.mentea.net
>> Chair, Print and Page Layout Community Group @ W3C    XML Guild member
>>   --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --  --
>> Mentea       XML, XSL-FO and XSLT consulting, training and programming
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/XML/XPPL/
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/community/ppl/
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/community/about/
>> [4] http://www.w3.org/community/ppl/2014/01/28/survey-results/

Received on Monday, 10 March 2014 09:18:19 UTC