[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Yes. It is the publishing lobster trap: data goes
in but does not come out. The author controls the
fixed form at publication within reasonable limits.
One can break PDF (or could, I haven't tried that
since I mentioned it to Zilles a long time ago) but
it makes the app fail and that is a really extreme
means to change a style.
My point here is that arguing for complete author
control will push one away from XML anyway. User
control pushes toward it. If I am sending XML
to an XSLT-enabled receiver, my control is pretty
much zero, so trust. If I send CSS inlined, I have
more control but not perfect because it is not
hard to edit a file or even XSLT it. If I send it with
a reference to CSS, I am back to the same problem
as with XSLT: trust. I can't be sure what is in
the CSS with that name at the receiver. The only way
I can send it without having to trust the receiver is to use a
FFF (final fixed format).
len
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]
At 12:10 PM 7/10/2003 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>As much as I dislike it, the case for PDF keeps
>getting stronger on the authoring side.
I hope you mean that as "publishing side" or something like it - it's not
much fun to edit or write in PDF directly.
|
