[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: James Robertson <jamesr@steptwo.com.au>
- To: xml-dev@xml.org
- Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:29:53 +1000
At 20:34 19/06/2000, Rick JELLIFFE wrote:
>Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>I cannot find any posting that relates to this. I can see Marcus Carr's
>thread on whether FOs represent a good architectural approach, and also
>the recent one on what is the most appropriate level, and also one
>mentioning aural stylesheets.
>
>But nothing anywhere actually specifying any hard details. What features
>are missing from XSL-FO? Perhaps Sebastian could give some details: I
>for one would find it useful to have some idea of what is missing or
>where they have gone wrong.
As an outsider, I have seen many discussions on
the XSL list regarding the limitations/problems with
XSL FO.
Running headers and footers spring to mind ...
But I'm not up on it all, so I would recommend
having a wander through the XSL list archive
(I think there is one).
J
-------------------------
James Robertson
Step Two Designs Pty Ltd
SGML, XML & HTML Consultancy
Illumination: an out-of-the-box Intranet solution
http://www.steptwo.com.au/
jamesr@steptwo.com.au
***************************************************************************
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/
***************************************************************************
|
