Subject: Re: FO. lists as tables. Re: Q: XML+XSL transforms to a print-readyformat
From: "Paul Tchistopolskii" <paul@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 03:21:28 -0700
|
> > Could you please take a look at http://www.renderx.com/Tests/
> >
> I see a nice table, and indeed you have expressed it all as lists.
> My only problem is that when I am writing an XSL spec to display
> <table><row><cell></cell></row></table>
> I really am not thinking in terms of lists. So although you show it
> can be done, I just cannot imagine doing it in practice.
It depends on what do you mean by 'practice'.
Also.
Inner vertical borders in these tables are created by borders
on fo:list-item-bodies. This contradicts the XSL WD,
where list-item-bodies are said not to create any area.
As I have already mentioned in the xsl-list (in a message about
interplay between lists and indents), we find this behaviour very
confusing, and treat list-item-labels/list-item-bodies as separate
rectangular areas placed inside fo:list-item.
This enables us to assign borders to them. WIthout these
borders, you will get exactly the same topology, but only the
horizontal lines (created by borders of fo:list-items) and the
overall list-block border will remain.
So we are *not* saying that it's more than :
a) our internal test for lists ( it's why it is not
yet publshed on the website. However, it may
appear there some day ).
b) the workaround in situation when you need
to start building your XML framework with the
*incomplete* implementation of FOs.
In situation when XSL FO WD itself is still
incomplete, starting with the incomplete
implementation of the XSL FO WD may
be reasonable. I'm not saying that the
majority of XML users should use this
particular trick. I'm not saying that the
majority of XML users should start with the
incomplete stantard. On another hand,
people have started with HTML ( and
JavaScript and Java e t.c. ) when each
of those things was incomplete.
Yes - it's just a hack, causing some part of
XSLT stylesheet to become more messy
than it should be and after receiving the
next version of FOs implementation you
may change that part of the stylesheet.
( You anyway need to change your
stylesheets with every version of XT -
of course the chnages required are
not so dramatic )
Would it be better to have all parts of the
system in place in one moment?
Of course yes. ( How often it happens
is another story ).
Would it be better if you'l have no way to
render tables at all? I don't think so.
And the last but not the least - even
having tables, you may find that in some
situations ( with some XML input files)
some table-alike things may be better
rendered as a nested lists, so this
knowledge is not absolutely useless.
Hacking sometimes helps.
> How do you express decimal alignment in such a notation?
I don't think we'l ever do it.
We'l support the 'standard' tables soon. Tables are
based on the same internal API as lists. Lists are
just tables. Two columns, one row. Aren't they?
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
|