On 18 Jan 2018, at 17:06, Eliot Kimber ekimber(_at_)contrext(_dot_)com
<mailto:ekimber(_at_)contrext(_dot_)com>
<xsl-list-service(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
<mailto:xsl-list-service(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>> wrote:
There’s no inherent reason CSS pagination has to be mediocre.
My observation is it’s another case of simply not having enough resources
available to get the work done.
I think you've just given the inherent reason. Getting the resources to do a
high quality job for people with high-end requirements requires significant
investment. Getting the resources to do a mediocre job (by which I mean, to
satisfy the needs of those who aren't very fussy) is much easier.
(I wasn't trying to suggest there's any architectural problem with a CSS-based
solution. Just that the economics always favours meeting the 50% of the
requirements that are enough to satisfy 90% of the users, and stopping there.)
Michael Kay
Saxonica
--~----------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
EasyUnsubscribe: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/unsub/xsl-list/1167547
or by email: xsl-list-unsub(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com
--~--