... I'm sorry. That didn't make sense. Could you please repeat it, using something more closely resembling actual English? I don't actually understand your point or even what your sentences are trying to say.
As to the point on CSS, nobody wants to use a broken CSS renderer. They simply have to, and nobody likes that circumstance. Nobody's asking Microsoft to make Internet Explorer non-CSS compliant. b.ohnsorg wrote: > > 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...) > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Drop-RTF-Support--tf4192798.html#a12083281 Sent from the FOP - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
