[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
From: "Ian Tindale" <iandeli@clara.co.uk>
> the emphasis given to relatively useless items such as footnotes is again quite arcane.
?? I think this assumes that FO is primarily intended for screen rendering.
The introduction[1] also makes clear it is for physical pages too. But the
kinds of phystical pages are things like "catalog, report, pamphlet, or book."
XSL-FO fits in with the Western book typographic tradition, not the poster
or display advertisement or cartoon book tradition.
Contrast this with CSS, which is developed to allow "authors and readers to attach style (e.g. fonts, colors and spacing) to HTML documents." [2] CSS is primarily driven
by the idea of a user agent and by implementations of Web Browsers[3]
CSS is approaching styling from an HTML foundation. XSL-FO is approaching
styling from a paper foundation. Seems realistic. Why should we expect them to
converge or not overlap?
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/slice1.html#section-N629-Introduction-and-Overview
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1
[3]"But most of all CSS 2.1 represents a "snapshot" of CSS usage: it consists of all CSS features that were implemented interoperably at the date of publication."
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
|
