Subject: Re: XSL-FO versus PostScript
From: Zack Brown <zbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:22:46 -0800
|
On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 05:54:22PM -0800, W. Eliot Kimber wrote:
> Yes--on the EXSLFO list I've discussed several possible low-cost
> solutions to this limitation,
Do you mean the FOP-dev list or something else? If something else, can
you give subscription information? Google doesn't seem to know about it.
Be well,
Zack
> and an architected solution in the spec
> itself is certainly possible. It's also important to keep in mind that
> while XSL was designed to support a two-stage generate/paginate process,
> it does not require that--there's no reason an FO implementation
> couldn't provide a private feedback mechanism in an all-in-one processor.
>
> My low-cost solution is simply to define a mechanism by which FO
> processors can be directed to generate auxiliary, or "side" files, with
> page- and marker-specific information that can be fed back into an XSLT
> process. This would enable a multi-pass, layout-aware process at minimal
> additional cost to FO implementations.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Eliot
> --
> W. Eliot Kimber, eliot@xxxxxxxxxx
> Consultant, ISOGEN International
>
> 1016 La Posada Dr., Suite 240
> Austin, TX 78752 Phone: 512.656.4139
>
>
> 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
|