Halloechen! Chris Hoess wrote:
> [...] > > Well, XSL:FO is (IMO) more suitable for documents destined for printed > rendering and complex typography than for the WWW, which is accessed by a > variety of user agents with very different capabilities. This has been > clearly recognized by the W3C with its work on "profiles", mobile devices, > etc. XSL:FO largely exists (as I understand it) because designers for > printed media found CSS lacking in precise typographical and layout > capability. OTOH, the CSS recommendation is written to allow the > flexibility necessary for WWW design. But CSS3 will include those typographic things and would make XSL:FO obsolete. The W3C is creating competition between two of their most complicated efforts. :-/ > > [...] > >>>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. >> > > It's not the ugliness, it's the semantics. (See dbaron's URLs). In an > HTML document, it's possible to determine whether some text is a heading, > a list, a definition, an acronym...etc. all from the markup, *regardless > of how the user agent actually displays it*. With pure XSL:FO documents, > all you have is appearance with which to guess the author's intent. So > already elements begin to overlap (<code>, <kbd>, <tt>, for instance), and > things get even worse if the user agent can't deal with some complex piece > of layout. All granted, I see your problem, and I also see that it *is* a problem. However, what does this mean to me (and many other people with limited resources who want to have their documents in many formats, including web)? I will continue with PDF. Super. No semantics at all, and -- in contrast to XSL:FO -- no chance for the browser to display it more eye-friendly. Ab-so-lute-ly monolithic. I wanted to get away from it (especially because of the file size, I admit). But I can't write (1) an XSLT to LaTeX for fine printing, (2) XSL:FO for extra-small PDF, RTF etc. *and* (3) XSLT+CSS for the semantic web. So the web will get PDFs. A well typeset document has actually *lots* of semantics (many people think that this is even an art form :-), even if you can't create a TOC automatically. And considering all those one thousand web pages I've seen with abused -- and thus semantic-free -- tags I am slightly irritated that I'm not allowed to use XSL:FO, in order to support the semantic web. > > Auf wiederhoeren, Tschoe, Torsten.
