On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 07:52:46PM +0000, David Carlisle wrote:
Wouldn't that be very cool?
well it would be very familiar at least.
Anyone using a postscript back end to (la)tex typesetting has been able
to do all those kind of things for a couple of decades or so.
I don't think it really fits with the FO model though.
the point of FO is that it intentionally cuts out lots of device
specific processing so that it can be a cross platform language
for specifying the style and layout.
But (and I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to make a decision),
why doesn't this restrict XSL-FO to being just a cute example of an XML
application? If by using TeX, people can get the power of PostScript without
sacrificing XSL-FO's high level formatting features, then why wouldn't TeX
be the proper solution for their problem? Even if XSL-FO is fully device
independent, a TeX/PS solution isn't exactly device specific.
So to sum up the argument so far:
I asked why we should prefer XSL-FO over PostScript, since PostScript is
more powerful. The reply was that PostScript didn't have the high level
document features provided by XSL-FO. So now my reply is, TeX provides
those high-level features, *and* it allows PostScript constructs that
give the full power of PostScript to the user. Is there another reason
to prefer XSL-FO?
Peace,
Zack
In particular in FO there is no feedback from the typeset constructs to
the layout engine so you can't ask as you can in PS or TeX, "does this
fit here" changing that would be a big change to FO.
David
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
--
Zack Brown
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list