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 > correct?
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 end. > 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 > properly. 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. Jeremias Maerki
