OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: XML Editor recommendation?

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: "Pollington, Lee (ELSLON)" <lee.pollington@biomednet.com>
  • To: xml-dev <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
  • Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:08:14 +0000

Although I would say CSS would be preferable, FOSI is also a standard, if
not a W3C standard. Having worked in the web for many years, I have come to
find that compliance to a standard is worth it's weight in gold when
constructing applications, etc. Anyone who has written CSS/DHTML
applications for cross browser platforms will understand how much time can
be spent working out what will work and what will not, essentially what
subset applies to all platforms and the platform specific hacks necessary
for more complicated behaviour. 

At the very least we should expect an up front declaration of what is
implemented, what is buggy and what is proprietary, thus allowing us to make
informed decisions as to which product to choose to suit our needs. I found
the FOSI DTD on Epic, so I should know what to expect. I was pleased to see
that two XSL:FO implementers: Apache FOP & RenderX are clear about what they
do and do not support and from which recommendation, I was quickly able to
asses which would be suitable for our needs.

The differences between Epic & Epic LE can be found at:

Once again I am not anti-XMetal, I have just tried to explain why LE may be
more appropriate for us at this point. Time will tell.

Kind regards

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Michael Champion [mailto:mchamp@mediaone.net]
>>And if Epic doesn't, why ask about XMetaL's level of compliance?


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS