Chris Hill wrote: > On Fri, 28 Dec 2001 03:42:01 +0100, Torsten Bronger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Halloechen! >> >>I read that we can't expect Mozilla showing XML documents >>that link to an XSL stylesheet with FOs. >> >>Why isn't it planned to support this (fantastic) standard? > > I've seen this question raised before in mozilla newsgroups. You > might want to try searching the archives using > http://groups.google.com.
Well, "I read" that exactly there. Those discussions always were on a practical level, but I wonder why the W3C creates a 400-pages standard although the two Big Browsers won't support it. Maybe the XSLFO creators should have asked _before_? :-) > From a practical point of view, this would require substantial work on > the layout engine. The current mozilla layout engine is basically an > XML+CSS renderer. Supporting XSL-FO would mean generalizing the > engine or writing another one, both of which would be very > complicated. But now it's for _me_ complicated! I must not only create XSLT trafo to LaTeX and XSL:FO for my FO-Processors (especially the transformation to RTF); additionally I have to write XSLT to HTML. This last step is actually superfluous. And I may keep all three versions consistent. :-( The same is true for all other XML application out there. I think not supporting FOs creates an annoying redundancy. > > Then there's the question of what XSL-FO provides that XML+CSS (and > possibly XSLT, which mozilla supports) doesn't. Granted, but one argument more to delete one of them from the W3C home page. > Some people fear that > sites would start serving XSL-FO content instead of serving XML with > an associated FO stylesheet. I don't know why people would do that, but automatically generated ugly web files are already existing. Tschoe, Torsten.
