[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
bryan rasmussen said:
>>
>> 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
The points of that article from N. Walsh (following your criteria an anti
CSS troll) are weak. Recently the XSL-FO believer N. Walsh wrote
[http://norman.walsh.name/2004/12/07/webarchPdf]:
"... web browsers suck at printing. ... And CSS is never going to fix it.
Did you hear me? CSS is never going to fix it."
I find curious that Walsh was able to differentiate between aplications of
XSL-FO and the own FO spec in its defense of XSL-FO whereas in his more
recent writtings is unable to differentiate the own CSS from current
implementations of CSS in browsers. Last CSS formatters prove that a CSS
engine can print so fine as XSL-FO does whereas CSS technology can be
reused in other ways as web styling.
>> 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?
You can take a XSL-FO file and transform it to PDF or you can see the
paginated XSL-FO with a XSL-FO rendered directly. Why is the translation
to pdf prefered instead spreading of XSL-FO 'Readers'? Maybe because PDF
is better (e.g. metadata)?
>
>> "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.
Above was just a quote from a more complete article and i added more
thoughts completing the whole stuff. I also think that history of XSL was
convoluted as the namespaces remember us each day
XSLT --> <xsl: ...>
XSL-FO --> <fo: ...>
when XSL = XSLT + XSL-FO.
I do not see your point here.
>>
>> 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?
XML is being oversold, i think that many people would agree on this.
XML is not the best format for extensive usage of mathematics or graphics
for example (maybe this is reason for canvas or for binary format in
OpenMath). A XML markup model can be efficient when the ratio
markup/content is low. Maybe that is reason that SVG needs special parsing
model for extract the 'non-XML' data from a XML file.
> Cheers,
> Bryan Rasmussen
Juan R.
Center for CANONICAL |SCIENCE)
|
