Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Yes. It is the publishing lobster trap: data goes in but does not come out. The author controls the fixed form at publication within reasonable limits. One can break PDF (or could, I haven't tried that since I mentioned it to Zilles a long time ago) but it makes the app fail and that is a really extreme means to change a style. My point here is that arguing for complete author control will push one away from XML anyway. User control pushes toward it. If I am sending XML to an XSLT-enabled receiver, my control is pretty much zero, so trust. If I send CSS inlined, I have more control but not perfect because it is not hard to edit a file or even XSLT it. If I send it with a reference to CSS, I am back to the same problem as with XSLT: trust. I can't be sure what is in the CSS with that name at the receiver. The only way I can send it without having to trust the receiver is to use a FFF (final fixed format). len From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] At 12:10 PM 7/10/2003 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >As much as I dislike it, the case for PDF keeps >getting stronger on the authoring side. I hope you mean that as "publishing side" or something like it - it's not much fun to edit or write in PDF directly.
|
