Nicol Bolas wrote:
> In any case, RTF lacks the full degree of expressiveness possible from
> XSL-FO anyway, so some information is going to get lost. What's the point of
> doing the XSL-FO transform to begin with if you didn't want your stuff to
> have a particular look to it? It's like wanting to use a broken CSS renderer
> for your HTML; you may as well not have bothered with the CSS to begin with.
>
Did you ever argue with a sort of «big spender» about paying your ideas AND
knowing, that he'll have to pay 100times more to get his workers on XSLT-level?
Some people even don't care 'bout rockets flying through an empty space,
reaching a «big rock» and sending back some stones, so why can't there be
people who don't care 'bout what XSLT even means and have absolutely no idea of
«document editing» beyond type->mark->make bold+underline? (And your
CSS-argument is quite dangerous, some browser, only a few, very little *g*
don't support CSS. Can you imagine, that it's not possible to have auto-content
in something called Internet Explorer *g*? But you could use ActiveX to render
nearly anything with curves, lines and realtime-3D, which would be even closer
to reality...)
