[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@computing-services.oxford.ac.uk>
- To: AndrewWatt2000@aol.com
- Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:29:47 +0100 (BST)
AndrewWatt2000@aol.com writes:
> That is not to say that XSL:FO should be discarded. Arguing by
> analogy, not
> everyone needs an 18 wheeler to take their shopping home, something
> a little
> more modest will meet the needs of many. The majority may have neither the
> need nor resources to incur the capital and maintenance costs of the "all
> encompassing" solution - which is what I guess XSL:FO, in a sense, will be.
The trouble is, to go back a week or so, there is insufficient
evidence that XSL FO *is* all-encompassing. If you reject it in favour
of XSLV for simple jobs, we have to be very sure that its up to the
really serious design/typesetting jobs. Which it does not appear to
me, and I am sure the XSL WG would agree that they have made
compromises already.
It is an indication of something that no-one from the XSL WG steps up
to defend their baby in this discussion :-} Perhaps if some of the
people working on it were a little more vocal and passionate about the
work, the publicity would show that its a GOOD thing?
Sebastian Rahtz
***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************
|
