- From: Ian Hickson <ianh@netscape.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 13:33:43 -0700 (Pacific Daylight Time)
- To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- cc: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > > There are a LOT of holes in browser printing support that would be > considered show-stoppers in a word processor, much less a desktop > publishing program. > > [...] > > Bottom line: browsers print well enough to let you read something > offline. They don't print well enough to let you do professional > quality work like TeX or Quark. That's where I see XSL-FO fitting in. You're serious? You are really telling me that because current UAs have some serious bugs in printing, we should -- instead of fixing the bugs -- introduce a new file format altogether? What makes you think that we'll be able to implement printing of XSL:FOs any better than CSS? -- Ian Hickson )\ _. - ._.) fL Netscape, Standards Compliance QA /. `- ' ( `--' +1 650 937 6593 `- , ) - > ) \ irc.mozilla.org:Hixie _________________________ (.' \) (.' -' __________
Received on Monday, 2 October 2000 16:31:39 UTC