- From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 07:16:43 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
I've just finished quite a bit of work with XSL-FO, and it seems to me that it goes quite a bit beyond what CSS attempts. I can easily see using XSLT+XSL-FO to lay out a complete book. I can't see doing that with CSS. Why? Here are a few reasons: 1. Page numbers! XSL-FO makes it straight-forward not only to insert the current page number but to cross-reference to numbers of other pages. This is essential for building tables of contents, indexes, cross-references, and more. 2. Footnotes and other floating objects. 3. Running headers and running footers. Every book has these. I don't see them in CSS. 4. More granular properties. Many CSS properties are just shorthands for more detailed XSL-FO properties. 5. Much better support for non right-to-left, top-to-bottom text; including text that mixes writing directions. And of course there are the practical issues like the fact that XSL-FO lets me produce a high-quality PDF and bring it to the local print shop while CSS doesn't. Some of these are fixable problems, and some of them will likely be fixed (though I'm really curious to know how CSS could even begin to handle page number citations and cross-references) but I still expect that I'll be publishing printed books with XSL-FO long before I can think about doing that with CSS. CSS may be enough for the Web, but I don't think it's enough for print. -- +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer | +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | The XML Bible (IDG Books, 1999) | | http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/books/bible/ | | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764532367/cafeaulaitA/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://metalab.unc.edu/javafaq/ | | Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://metalab.unc.edu/xml/ | +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
Received on Monday, 2 October 2000 08:06:57 UTC