[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Marcus Carr <mrc@allette.com.au>
- To: xml-dev@xml.org
- Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:09:00 +1000
Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> > But now we're talking about a package consisiting of a syntax and
> > an application. You need to
> > feed something to the engine, but what's the advantage is in
> > feeding it FO over a proprietary syntax?
>
> so that you can switch engines. not every day, of course, but a switch
> from FO engine A to FO engine B once a year would be reasonable.
Keeping in mind that you may also expect the look of the output to change in
some ways, possibly making it impractical to do things like send page ranges
out, as the boundaries may have changed. I'd need a pretty good reason to
switch once a year.
> No, but the lack of a common style description language *has* been a
> practical irritation. Translating designers written specs into code is
> a hit and miss affair, in my experience.
No question, but I don't think that's a really good reason to come up with a
recommendation.
> Lord, thats a depressing outlook. We are dictated to by what *computer
> people* feel can be accomplished????
I guess that depends on what you consider computer people to be, but
generally, yes, I feel that's the case. Don't you?
--
Regards,
Marcus Carr email: mrc@allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au
___________________________________________________________________
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
- Einstein
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************
|
