On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 07:52:46PM +0000, David Carlisle wrote:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't that be very cool?
> 
> well it would be very familiar at least.
> Anyone using a postscript back end to (la)tex typesetting has been able
> to do all those kind of things for a couple of decades or so.
> I don't think it really fits with the FO model though.
> the point of FO is that it intentionally cuts out lots of device
> specific processing so that it can be a cross platform language
> for specifying the style and layout. 

But (and I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to make a decision),
why doesn't this restrict XSL-FO to being just a cute example of an XML
application? If by using TeX, people can get the power of PostScript without
sacrificing XSL-FO's high level formatting features, then why wouldn't TeX
be the proper solution for their problem? Even if XSL-FO is fully device
independent, a TeX/PS solution isn't exactly device specific.

So to sum up the argument so far:

I asked why we should prefer XSL-FO over PostScript, since PostScript is
more powerful. The reply was that PostScript didn't have the high level
document features provided by XSL-FO. So now my reply is, TeX provides
those high-level features, *and* it allows PostScript constructs that
give the full power of PostScript to the user. Is there another reason
to prefer XSL-FO?

Peace,
Zack

> 
> In particular in FO there is no feedback from the typeset constructs to
> the layout engine so you can't ask as you can in PS or TeX, "does this
> fit here" changing that would be a big change to FO.
> 
> David
> 
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
> 

-- 
Zack Brown

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