Although I don’t get a vote, I completely agree with Glenn that DITA
integration into FOP is completely inappropriate.

I also challenge Ron’s assertion that DITA users are the biggest users
of FOP; DocBook is way up there too, along with an uncountable number of
other document types.

If the DITA team wants to turn ownership over to the Apache Foundation,
that’s one thing; there are several projects that coöperate with FOP
(and some on which FOP depends), but they are not and should not be
*part* of FOP.

“Tightening the link between FOP and DITA” is a bad thing.  Separation
of concerns makes semantic markup work and makes Free/Open Source
Software work.  DITA (and other good XML vocabularies) are all about
describing information in a presentation-independent kind of way, and
then applying one or more presentation specifications to produce output.
 The presentation layer should be separate.  While many (most?) DITA
users depend on FOP, not all do,[*] and there are certainly many FOP
users who do not need to be saddled with DITA (or DocBook, or CALS, or
TEI, or ...).


[*] My entire experience with DITA has been around an MS-Word-centric
publication system, going into and out of Office Open XML, with no XSL
in sight.
Chris Maden, text nerd  <URL: >
Surround hate and force it to surrender.
GnuPG fingerprint: DB08 CF6C 2583 7F55 3BE9  A210 4A51 DBAC 5C5C 3D5E

Reply via email to