[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>
> 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]
>
Despite not liking XSL-FO I feel compelled to pull out that this is a
well-known anti XSL-FO troll.
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/1999/06/xsl_edit.html
>
> 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.
So you were comparing an existing usage with a hypothetical usage that
as far as I know is not worked on by anyone outside of some proof of
concept type applications?
> "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…'
>
This is of course the problem with argument by linkage. Why should I,
or anyone, care what Data Conversion Laboratory says in its website
glossary. What if I found a website glossary that said something else,
I guess this would strengthen your point that nobody knows what it is
because two people say different things. If so I am saddened to report
that nobody knows anything in all the world.
>
> Therein lays another example of this schizophrenia involving all things
> XML.
Your argument that some people say different things about an XML based
standard that you describe as a non-succesful unpopular XML based
standard proves that there is a schizophrenia involving all things
XML?
Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen
|
