[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Dave Pawson said:
> On Sat, 2006-07-22 at 10:59 -0700, juanrgonzaleza@canonicalscience.com
> wrote:
>
>> GIF, JPEG... [other format] is prefered over XMLs as SVG.
>
> SVG is XML?
"SVG is an application of XML and is compatible with the "Extensible
Markup Language (XML) 1.0" Recommendation"
[http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/intro.html]
> What does your sentence mean?
> Who prefers image formats over XML... and for what?
People continue using old GIFs and JPEGs and other formats as Flash by
several motives. A Trend
[http://www.google.com/trends?q=SVG%2C+GIF%2C+JPEG&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all]
Next can read some criticism on why the XML hype is going too far. XML is
not just good enough for any task:
[http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/2000/03/15/deviant/index.html]
There is also problems related to presentational features of SVG. Whereas
font was considered harmfull for the web (the visible one) and eliminated
from last (X)HTMLs, MathML, XSL-FO, and SVG follow the contrary way. I
find very interesting next
[http://dbaron.org/css/css-vg/]
also SVG is more oversized and slow in performance than canvas and there
is other stuff.
>> Mistake CSS is prefered over XSL-FO.
>
> Again, by whom? For what purpose?
Those Trends can offer you some basic view
[http://www.google.com/trends?q=XSL-FO&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all]
[http://www.google.com/trends?q=XSL-FO%2C+CSS&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all]
And those can offer you some debate
[http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/2000/06/21/deviant/index.html]
[http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/2005/01/19/print.html]
[http://www.biglist.com/lists/xsl-list/archives/199906/msg00349.html]
XSL-FO did born for the web, after transformed for off-line usage in
printing (in batch mode?) because lacking adequate properties (incremental
rendering, author vs client rendering preferences...). Last time CSS begin
to be more popular for printing also.
[http://www.alistapart.com/articles/boom]
with some recent profesional CSS formatters arriving this year, e.g. this
one against XSL-FO:
[http://www.realobjects.com/News-Article.793+M51571b033ca.0.html]
>
>
>>
>> Whow! Then XSL-FO is not for the visible web.
>
> No. Nor was it meant to be for (this threads definition) of the visible
> web.
> PDF|ps perhaps is (same context).
>
> Your arguments aren't making much sense Juan.
Hum. It is not clear for what XSL-FO was designed not for what people want
(or wait) use it.
"While one can hope that Web browsers will one day know how to directly
display data marked up with XSL formatting objects, for now an additional
step is necessary in which the output document is further transformed into
some other format, such as Adobe’s PDF."
[http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/bible2/chapters/ch18.html]
However the usage of XSL-FO for the web is very harmfull (and contrary to
'safe' web design guidelines)
[http://people.opera.com/howcome/1999/foch.html]
The own w3c not really explain differences between CSS and XSL for the web.
[http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS-vs-XSL#which]
When i said XSL-FO vs. PDF and people blamed me by this stupid comparison,
i was refering to the hypotetical usage of XSL-FO in browsers (or another
window GUI rendering) versus opening and seeing the same document in PDF
format online. In fact, i may be not the only see not clear for what
XSL-FO was designed... [*]
"Just getting a clear definition of XSL-FO can be tricky. There’s no
ultimate controversy here, but there are significant differences of
perspective and of language when XSL-FO is discussed."
"Data Conversion Laboratory, in its Website glossary, writes: 'XSL… is a
stylesheet language that gives us the ability to specify how data coded
with XML will format on screen (emphasis added). This language was
developed based on the ISO companion standard for SGML known as DSSSL…'
On screen? What could they possibly mean 'on screen'? That’s not what XSL is
about. Or is it? As Deach describes in the cross-media objectives: 'XSL
should cover the basic presentation requirements for…a wide range of
display devices, including reflow or repagination for palmtop devices, and
for the accessibility requirements that are now mandated by many
governments.'
Therein lays another example of this schizophrenia involving all things
XML. Is the prime purpose print, or is it electronic presentation? OK,
it’s both. So can one standardized approach really address the cross-media
challenge? Or will it meet the same fate as every other product or system
that claims to handle crossmedia? Failure. Adobe itself in the latest
version of InDesign essentially admits that the cross-media dream had not
worked out as previously expected. The cross-media feature of InDesign CS
is to bundle up all the print text and graphics and ship them over to
GoLive, a Web publishing application.
"To give you a little more meat than the above, let me add a couple of
quotations from the 1.1 specification that provide context: 'XSL is a
language for expressing stylesheets. Given a class of arbitrarily
structured
XML documents or data files, designers use an XSL stylesheet to express
their intentions about how that structured content should be presented;
that is, how the source content should be styled, laid out, and paginated
onto some presentation medium, such as a window in a Web browser or a
hand-held device, or a set of physical pages in a catalog, report,
pamphlet, or book.'"
[*] McIlroy, Thad. The Gilbane Report 2004, 11(10), 1-14.
>
>>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Dave Pawson
> XSLT + Docbook FAQ
> http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
|
