[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
David Rosenborg wrote:
> But when I think of it, we really don't have to wait for XSL-FO 2 for
> this to happen. XSL-FO++ (with CSS) could be handled in a preprocessor
> yielding XSL-FO 1.0 as its output.
What's the advantage of using a three sttage approach
source XML - >(XSLT) -> XSLFO+CSS -> (CSS processor) -> XSLFO
if you can transform the source XML into the target XSLFO
directly? What's the advantage of expressing the style properties
in a language with Yet Another Syntax which can provide difficulties
when it has to be processed in the XSL transformation? (except of
showing that one still knows the CSS syntax, of course)
J.Pietschmann
|
