Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Marcus Carr writes: > But now we're talking about a package consisiting of a syntax and > an application. You need to > feed something to the engine, but what's the advantage is in > feeding it FO over a proprietary syntax? so that you can switch engines. not every day, of course, but a switch from FO engine A to FO engine B once a year would be reasonable. > Sure, just as an analyst might communicate the design of stucture > using a DTD, knowing that the eventual mechanism used for parsing > will be a schema. (I do this myself.) It may be a > good thing, but the lack of specification syntax hasn't exactly > stopped publishing in the past. No, but the lack of a common style description language *has* been a practical irritation. Translating designers written specs into code is a hit and miss affair, in my experience. > Do you really believe that someone's going to create something that > you compare favourably to TeX? yes, I do, sooner or later. > I expect that David Megginson's posting may represent the view a > large percentage of the XML industry, that is, allow typesetting > standards to degrade to what computer people feel > can reasonably be accomplished. Lord, thats a depressing outlook. We are dictated to by what *computer people* feel can be accomplished???? > If so, the day an FO application comes out that does as good > a typesetting job as Microsoft Word, victory will be joyfully declared. Oh well, then you can shout. XEP is already there. Doing better than Word is like shooting fish in a barrel Sebastian *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ ***************************************************************************
|
