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

Reply via email to