Lists Home |
Date Index |
I'm no expert on FO; print media was never in my every day work.
But since you are talking about requierements, FO is far too complex and
verbose for no apparent reason (in my eyes at least). Instead of
duplicating the semantics of CSS in XML syntax, it should have been
using CSS directly for the same reasons XPath expressions are not
written as XML.
Just my quarter of a euro.
> I have another question arising out of the mismatch of WG Charters and
> progress (or lack of it) on the ground.
> My question is what future does XSL-FO have at the W3C?
> The XSL-FO WG charter,
> indicates that a Requirements document for XSL/XSL-FO version 2.0 should have
> been produced before the XSL 1.0 Candidate Recommendation.
> To the best of my knowledge, more than a year *after* the XSL 1.0 CR, there
> is still no publicly available XSL/XSL-FO Requirements document. Did I miss
> Assuming that I didn't miss an existing document what is one to read into
> this enormous delay? Also, how is one to interpret the future of a
> specification where the Charter expires in December 2002 with, supposedly, an
> XSL-FO 2.0 Recommendation as the product?
> Somehow I don't envisage the production of a Requirements document leading to
> a REC in a little over two and half months.
> So what gives?
> Clearly, there is slippage on XSLT 2.0/XPath 2.0 too. But if there is an
> intent to further develop XSL-FO at the W3C when may we expect to see the
> long-promised "XSL 2.0" Requirements document? Can we assume that the XSL WG
> Charter is to be extended? I assume it must be if XSLT 2.0/XPath 2.0 are to
> be taken through to REC.
> Anyone care to eludicate the situation?
> Andrew Watt
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>