[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
At 2004-10-22 13:10 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
>* Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
> >>>I'd love to see a more sophisticated XSL-FO being used in browsers.
> >>
> >> The XSL-FOnt-tag language is not very popular among web authors...
> >
> >Sure, provided none of web browsers support XSL-FO (except for x-smiles
> >browser may be).
>
>Well, http://people.opera.com/howcome/1999/foch.html that does not come
>by surprise, does it?
That is old news and keeps getting dredged up out of context ... I don't
think the arguments are at all supported ... XSL-FO has been proven to meet
many production requirements.
I wish people would stop pointing to that long out-of-date article.
Or ... bring up new arguments that can be appropriately debated ... I'm not
claiming my view is the "right" view, but I do feel that 1999 view is an
old view.
................... Ken
--
World-wide on-site corporate, govt. & user group XML/XSL training.
G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Breast Cancer Awareness http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/bc
Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
|
