On 09.05.2006 23:57:24 J.Pietschmann wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > Attention: long post. :-)
> [snip stuff which reminds me on reinventing TeX/DVI]
> Using the page master name to map onto output media suggests that
> different page flows could be printed on different media. Is this
Yes. The clue about the whole thing is that you even need to print some
pages (for example the last in a flow/page-sequence) onto different
paper. Best example you will also know about: Invoice with an ESR at the
> I don't like the idea of using the name of single-page-masters
> all that much: people with complicated page sequence masters
> may easily forget to map one of the used single page masters
We can throw exceptions if no mapping is found, or the stuff is simply
printed on the default paper and people will quickly figure out that
they've done something wrong.
> I'd rather go for declaring the desired output directly
> on the flow (using an extension attribute), on fo:root for providing
> a default or in a fo:declarations (extension element).
On the flow or on root you cannot do fine-grained control over which
page is printed on which paper. See example above.
> PIs are
> also an option, they may enhance portability (ignored by other
> software than the target processor) but may confuse users about
> the scope where they apply and may provide surprises if read
> too late in a streaming processing mode.
Unsupported namespace should also be ignored by the processor. The XSL
spec is very clear about the use of non-XSL namespaces. I think when we
start using PIs the whole thing gets even more complicated.