• To: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@C...>
• Subject: Re: After XQuery, are we done?
• From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@g...>
• Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 14:07:35 +0200
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.0.20041022142223.0289c980@p...>
• References: <4178BC37.2020007@t...> <FEF4858E8AB32D4EAC2CF2A7D85386EB0B25429A@l...> <20041021193255.GE32505@w...> <4197459d.583804135@s...> <4178BC37.2020007@t...> <419cea1f.625918773@s...> <5.2.0.9.0.20041022142223.0289c980@p...>

* G. Ken Holman wrote:
>>[http://people.opera.com/howcome/1999/foch.html]
>
>That is old news and keeps getting dredged up out of context ... I don't 
>think the arguments are at all supported ... XSL-FO has been proven to meet 
>many production requirements.

Yes, but does it make sense to author web sites using XSL-FO? And even
if, does it make sense for a web browser to implement XSO-FO? They do
not implement PDF either.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: After XQuery, are we done?
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>

• References:
  • Re: After XQuery, are we done?
    • From: Oleg Tkachenko <oleg@t...>
  • RE: After XQuery, are we done?
    • From: "DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO)" <bob.ducharme@l...>
  • Re: After XQuery, are we done?
    • From: Liam Quin <liam@w...>
  • Re: After XQuery, are we done?
    • From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@g...>
  • Re: After XQuery, are we done?
    • From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@g...>
  • Re: After XQuery, are we done?
    • From: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@C...>

• Prev by Date: Re: After XQuery, are we done?
• Next by Date: RE: W3C XML Schema design tools
• Previous by thread: Re: After XQuery, are we done?
• Next by thread: Re: After XQuery, are we done?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread