Paul,

> For some reason you think that the tables part is a
> show-stopper. I don't think it is.  The time will show
> us who was right.

I won't even consider using XSL FO for anything other than recreational
purposes until there is robust table support. In the semiconductor
industry, over 70% of the material in a typical datasheet consists of
complex tables (read many columns and rows, with multiple spans) that
cannot be handled by a simple list mechanism. 

Just my two cents worth. 

Rick Geimer
National Semiconductor
rick.geimer@xxxxxxx

Paul Tchistopolskii wrote:
> 
> > Paul Tchistopolskii writes:
> >  > If you have good lists - you have 95% of the functionality
> >  > usualy requested from tables.
> >
> > that just doesn't conform with my observations, I am afraid. how do
> > you render the traditional matrix-like
> >
> >    a  b  c  d
> >    1  2  3  4
> >    5  6  7  8
> >
> > as list? (where the numbers have decimal points, and need lining up)
> >
> > do other people agree that table rendering is not needed for a
> > daily working system?
> 
> I'l  just repeat myself. We got about 5 testcases from the
> 'outher space' from people who wanted us to render their
> typical layouts.
> 
> Some testcases has been rendered  with lists instead
> of tables. The clients were saticfied with the results.
> 
> Of course, I'm not saying that  good lists are equal to the tables.
> 
> What I'm saying is that if the system has no support
> for images -  it is critical. It usualy stops you right at
> the beginning. However, when there is no support for
> tables - it is not a show-stopper ( especialy if you know
> that it'l be there soon and that 'soon' is not one year
> forward)
> 
> For some reason you think that the tables part is a
> show-stopper. I don't think it is.  The time will show
> us who was right.
> 
> Netscape still has problems with rendering
> nested tables. Do we like it or not - it's the reality.
> 
> >  > Once again. The current shape of RenderX rendering engine
> >  > is sufficient  to  start  using it in the production environment.
> >
> > I wish you would show me, then, how to do a simple dictionary layout,
> > where the running head is
> >  foo ... bar
> > where "foo" is the first headword on the page, and "bar" is the last.
> > yes, I know this is very obscure for many people, its what I call a
> > production environment. Yes, this is probably an XSL FO question, not
> > a RenderX question.
> 
> Yes. There are problems with XSL FO. It may be not a
> good thing. It is just the best thing I see at the moment.  For a
> couple of reasons.
> 
> >  > tag somebody else will come and say that because rendering
> >  > engine does not  supports 'nice' page numbering in the situation
> >  > when the page has a landscape orientation - it is imcomplete?
> >
> > yup. until you can do what typical day-to-day formatters do in the
> > real world, its incomplete. hopefully, in due course, you'll go
> > *beyond* what current generation formatters do.
> 
> What is that 'typical' day-to-day formatter?  Is it
> MS Word? Or may be Jade? Or... Netscape?
> Isn't Netscape the most widely used day-to-day
> formatter? And it still has problems with
> nested tables ...
> 
> Sure - the TeX package powered by  TeX guru may be
> unbeatable thing. In some environments.
> UNIX server driven by UNIX guru may be
> also unbeatable thing. In some environments.
> 100 in-house developers, sitting at their cubicles
> pressing keyboards for custom development may
> be also unbeatable thing for some tasks.
> In some environments.
> 
> For example, I think in the environment
> when you have million of 'free' slaves it would
> be hard to sell any device that could replace
> 10 slaves in their occupation ( even the device
> is realy good). In some countries ( not in teh US)
> it's *much* cheapre to hire a couple of persons
> who will press the keyboards doing some trivial
> opreations, than to bye the appropriate software.
> I'm not kidding. Environment matters.
> 
> For some reason most of end-users are running  Windows
> on their desktops. Even on servers. I'm not saying that
> Windows is better, or more reliable OS than UNIX.
> For some reasons most of the people are using
> Windows for  their day-to-day typical tasks.
> 
> Well ... it appears that I should start explaning the advantages
> of XML here.  Kind of strange occupation - so I'l not continue
> my explanation why people sometimes decide to use a
> software that  has a limited  functionality if comparing
> it to the software they are already using.
> 
> >  > Actualy, I see nothing wrong  here. I was working in some
> >  > different companies in different countries and most of
> >  > them were using this or very similiar model.
> >
> > the "trust me, i am your friend" model, beloved of IBM in the old days?
> 
> I don't know what is wrong with IBM. I'm not that
> experienced in marketing. It's better to say that
> I'm not experienced in the marketing at all.
> 
> I think that for some ( obvious) reason most of the
> small companies are trying to build a good relations
> with their clients.  To me it's well understandable.
> 
> Also, it's understandable why most of the users want
> to pay nothing but get the good software in return for that
> nothing. For free. Almost every week I'm receiving  some
> email when somebody  ( for some reason ) wants
> me to do some job for him. For free. Maybe, it's because
> I'm providing some open-source? I don't know.
> 
> I don't  think it's possible to saticfy everybody in this world.
> 
> The only way I see is to  follow the rules. If you see
> were renderx is breaking some moral rule ( whatever
> it may mean) -  please let me know.  I think that  it would
> be better to do in a  private email first, because you may
> be mistaken.  Or you are never making mistakes?
> 
> >  > And I'm answering that our HTML may be 'incorrect',  because
> >  > it does not realy matter.
> >
> > No. it does not matter, per se, that your HTML is invalid.
> > It does not matter, per se, if the toilets are dirty when you go for
> > an interview in a new place of work. Its just a simple test one can
> > apply.
> 
> What would you think about the person who is spending the
> whole day cleaning toilets in the building, just because he
> can not live with the feeling that some toilet is dirty?
> 
> Of course, if it is his profession  - there is nothing strange with
> that person. Of course, it may be not good if we'l become a
> member of W3C and still have no time to validate our HTML.
> 
> Until that - I don't care about the hidden problems that
> make no harm to anybody. More. I don't care about
> supporting  Netscape version 2. I even don''t care
> too much about supporting Netscape version 3.
> Actualy I'm so shameless, that I don't care about
> supporting browsers other than Netscape 4.* and
> MSIE v5.*, because I'm making products for the
> majority.  I'm also not optimizing every line of the code
> when I'm writing the code.  I'm using profiler to optimize
> the code. Shame on me, maybe I'm realy too lazy.
> 
> >  > What particular problem do you have with our  HTML pages ?
> > none. I was just being picky, so I threw it at validator.w3.org
> 
> The thing is that sometimes I have no time to sleep.
> 
> Actualy, I apologize, but I have spend much more time
> than I realy have for  writing some letters. It means that
> I'l not  answer to this ( and related ) threads anymore
> for about  7 days.
> 
> Please forgive me,  if something still remains unclear -
> I tried to make it clear. I had to.
> 
> Rgds.Paul.
> 
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>  paul@xxxxxxxxx   www.renderx.com   www.pault.com
>  XMLTube * Perl/JavaConnector * PerlApplicationServer
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> 
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list