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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] Future of XSL-FO at W3C??

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Hash: SHA1

/ AndrewWatt2000@aol.com was heard to say:

[Speaking only for myself]

| My question is what future does XSL-FO have at the W3C?

A bright and rosy one, I hope, given that it has demonstrably
successful commercial and improving open-source implementations, is
widely used, and very successfully accomplishes the goals it set out
to achieve.

| The XSL-FO WG charter,
| http://www.w3.org/Style/2000/xsl-charter.html
| indicates that a Requirements document for XSL/XSL-FO version 2.0 should have 
| been produced before the XSL 1.0 Candidate Recommendation.

I haven't tried to review the charter, but on the face of it that
seems like putting the cart before the horse so if it says that I
don't find it very surprising that it didn't turn out that way.

| 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 
| it?

No, I don't think so.

| Assuming that I didn't miss an existing document what is one to read into 
| this enormous delay?

That the members of the WG are busy? That some of us think that it's
useful to put a spec into practice and let people actually *use it for
a while* before trying to decide what the user requirements for a next
version are?

(Personally, I think WGs should be forbidden from doing any work
except clarifications and errata on a V1.0 spec for at least 365
consecutive days.)

| 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?

That seems a bit like reading tea leaves to me. The only
interpretation that I think is justified is "gee, they'll have to
amend the charter before December".

| 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?

Given that FO 1.0 has clearly been successful, and the fact that the
same dedicated folks on the WG are doing their level best to manage
the development of XSLT 2.0, XPath 2.0, and the next version of XSL FO
all at the same time, I would expect it to be published "soon". I have
faith and confidence in them. Then again, I'm one of them, so that's
not a huge surprise, right? :-)

                                        Be seeing you,

- -- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM    | A moment's insight is sometimes worth a
XML Standards Architect | life's experience.--Oliver Wendell Holmes
Sun Microsystems, Inc.  | 
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>



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

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