Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
AndrewWatt2000@a... writes: > That is not to say that XSL:FO should be discarded. Arguing by > analogy, not > everyone needs an 18 wheeler to take their shopping home, something > a little > more modest will meet the needs of many. The majority may have neither the > need nor resources to incur the capital and maintenance costs of the "all > encompassing" solution - which is what I guess XSL:FO, in a sense, will be. The trouble is, to go back a week or so, there is insufficient evidence that XSL FO *is* all-encompassing. If you reject it in favour of XSLV for simple jobs, we have to be very sure that its up to the really serious design/typesetting jobs. Which it does not appear to me, and I am sure the XSL WG would agree that they have made compromises already. It is an indication of something that no-one from the XSL WG steps up to defend their baby in this discussion :-} Perhaps if some of the people working on it were a little more vocal and passionate about the work, the publicity would show that its a GOOD thing? Sebastian Rahtz *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
|
