Re: XSL vs. FOP [was: Re: pagenumbering]
Hi Eric, Le 31/08/2011 14:36, Eric Douglas a écrit : XSLFO is what you get when you combine XSLT with XML. This is incomplete: XML+XSLT can give (via xsl:output/@method attribute): - XML (among what XSL-FO is, but not only) - HTML (a SGML DTD) - TEXT XSLFO is an extension of XSLT and includes XSLT commands. definitively not, but: XML allows to mix different namespaces, this is how you can transform XML from various DTD (for example: docbook) into other DTD (for example: XHTML, XSL-FO). -- Pascal - To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: XSL vs. FOP [was: Re: pagenumbering]
Hi, as you said, XSL is separated in 2 things: - XML transformation (namespace http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform) - Formating objects (namespace http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format) using the same name for this 2 separate things is quite unclear, so in FOP lists we speak about either XSLT (about the former), or XSL-FO (about the latter). It is mainly for convenience that we use here these 2 short words: XSLT Vs XSL-FO What FOP engine takes as input is XSL-FO (tags fo:xxx), so it is important to understand the difference between the 2 above. Why XSL project splitted into 2 subprojects is out of topic here. Le 31/08/2011 06:09, Christopher R. Maden a écrit : On 08/30/2011 11:41 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: We may be applying different ontological models here. That does seem likely, since... I label anything having to do with XSL-FO as FO related. I label anything having to do with XSLT as XSL related. For me, FO related != XSL related. The XSL-FO language is defined in URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/ , “Extensible Stylesheet Language (XSL).” Early drafts did not even separate the transformation and formatting parts of XSL, but since the transformation was so useful on its own, it was spun out. However, formatting was the primary goal of the XSL work. IOW, FO *is* XSL. XSLT is a by-product, but is often (mistakenly) called “XSL.” Because FOP supports both XSL(T) [indirectly} and FO, it certainly covers both areas, but as far as I'm concerned the XSL(T) portion of it is a convenience function, unrelated to its core functionality. I concur with that... it is now clear that the only confusion is whether or not FO is part of XSL; I hope the title of the W3C Recommendation defining it clarifies that. [Argumentum ad verecundiam: I was on the W3C XSL Working Group from its inception in 1997 until 2002.] It is also quite clear at URL: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list/#introduction that XSL-FO is in scope for that list. I wouldn’t and can’t stop anyone from posting questions about FO here. However, I will try, in my answers, to make clear whether their questions pertain to FOP behavior or whether they would have the same questions regardless of which tool they were using. ~Chris -- Pascal - To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org
RE: XSL vs. FOP [was: Re: pagenumbering]
XSLFO is what you get when you combine XSLT with XML. XSLFO is an extension of XSLT and includes XSLT commands. XSLFO is as unrelated to FOP as XSLT when you're talking about it's creation for expected output. If you want only FOP related questions they should be about XSLFO commands and only as far as whether they're supported and whether they're producing the expected output. There is likely a better place for questions about how to generate XSLT or XSLFO which should produce particular output which don't question whether FOP is processing it correctly, and you're welcome to point people to such a place if you don't have an answer or don't feel like answering, though I personally wouldn't mind helping if I do have an answer. I use FOP with XML + XSLT with embedded code. I have had some issues with how FOP works which require looking at the XSLFO, so I actually split the process so I call the Java transform method twice. One passes the XSL on the Transformer create and the XML as input and the output is XSLFO I can write to a file if I need. The second transform uses no XSL and passes the XSLFO as input and the FOP handler on the output. If you don't want to 'misspend' any time answering questions that should include questions about how to write XSLT or XSLFO. Once someone has valid XSLFO and they're not getting the expected output then it's an FOP question. From: Glenn Adams [mailto:gl...@skynav.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:41 PM To: fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org Subject: Re: XSL vs. FOP [was: Re: pagenumbering] Christopher, We may be applying different ontological models here. I label anything having to do with XSL-FO as FO related. I label anything having to do with XSLT as XSL related. For me, FO related != XSL related. In fact, there is no necessary logical connection between the two, except insofar as FO borrows/reuses certain constructs from XSL(T), the only one of which I know of is the number to string conversion properties, which, coincidentally, have to do with the current subject matter: page number generation. In any case, by model, page number properties are FO related, not XSL related. Because FOP supports both XSL(T) [indirectly} and FO, it certainly covers both areas, but as far as I'm concerned the XSL(T) portion of it is a convenience function, unrelated to its core functionality. Given the amount of traffic (mis)spent on issues related to the XSL(T) features of FOP, I often wish it did not support this convenience function. But that's neither here nor there. G. On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Christopher R. Maden cr...@maden.org wrote: On 08/30/2011 10:52 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: actually, this is an FO issue, not XSL, since it is FOP that generates page numbers via fo:page-number XSL encompasses both Formatting Objects (sometimes XSL-FO) and XSL Tranformations (XSLT). An FO issue *is* an XSL issue. It is FOP that generates page numbers, but what Theresa needed was the FO instruction, which is agnostic about the software that consumes it (whether FOP, RenderX, Antenna House, or anything else). The XSL List (URL: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list/ ) covers all of XSL, including XSL-FO. We've previously had discussions on this list about allowing XML+XSLT as input to FOP, and the potential user confusion that results as to what FOP actually does. For similar reasons, when I reply to questions here, I try to make it clear what parts are specific to FOP, and which questions are about XML, XSLT, or FO, and orthogonal to FOP's operation specifically. the correct answer is that you need to use the initial-page-number property on fo:page-sequence to specify a different starting number than is generated by auto; see http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xsl11-20061205/#initial-page-number and and http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xsl11-20061205/#fo_page-sequence for details; Yes, and I apologize for not taking the time to look up the references that Theresa needs. ~Chris [Emotional content notice (since plain text is really bad at communicating this): I want to be very clear that I am not attacking or criticizing Glenn or Theresa. And certainly, I've known Glenn by his work for far too long to accuse him of anything remotely resembling ignorance. I have simply attempted to be somewhat detailed and pedantic here for maximal clarity to everyone who might read this.] -- Chris Maden, text nerd URL: http://crism.maden.org/ The present tendency and drift towards the Police State gives all free Americans pause. - Alabama Supreme Court, 1955 (Pike
RE: XSL vs. FOP [was: Re: pagenumbering]
And my question was about the FO fo:page-number/ tag therefore a FOP question Ie how do I get the output I need when using the tag.. Kindest regards Theresa Forster Senior Software Developer From: Eric Douglas [mailto:edoug...@blockhouse.com] Sent: 31 August 2011 13:37 To: fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org Subject: RE: XSL vs. FOP [was: Re: pagenumbering] XSLFO is what you get when you combine XSLT with XML. XSLFO is an extension of XSLT and includes XSLT commands. XSLFO is as unrelated to FOP as XSLT when you're talking about it's creation for expected output. If you want only FOP related questions they should be about XSLFO commands and only as far as whether they're supported and whether they're producing the expected output. There is likely a better place for questions about how to generate XSLT or XSLFO which should produce particular output which don't question whether FOP is processing it correctly, and you're welcome to point people to such a place if you don't have an answer or don't feel like answering, though I personally wouldn't mind helping if I do have an answer. I use FOP with XML + XSLT with embedded code. I have had some issues with how FOP works which require looking at the XSLFO, so I actually split the process so I call the Java transform method twice. One passes the XSL on the Transformer create and the XML as input and the output is XSLFO I can write to a file if I need. The second transform uses no XSL and passes the XSLFO as input and the FOP handler on the output. If you don't want to 'misspend' any time answering questions that should include questions about how to write XSLT or XSLFO. Once someone has valid XSLFO and they're not getting the expected output then it's an FOP question. _ From: Glenn Adams [mailto:gl...@skynav.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:41 PM To: fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org Subject: Re: XSL vs. FOP [was: Re: pagenumbering] Christopher, We may be applying different ontological models here. I label anything having to do with XSL-FO as FO related. I label anything having to do with XSLT as XSL related. For me, FO related != XSL related. In fact, there is no necessary logical connection between the two, except insofar as FO borrows/reuses certain constructs from XSL(T), the only one of which I know of is the number to string conversion properties, which, coincidentally, have to do with the current subject matter: page number generation. In any case, by model, page number properties are FO related, not XSL related. Because FOP supports both XSL(T) [indirectly} and FO, it certainly covers both areas, but as far as I'm concerned the XSL(T) portion of it is a convenience function, unrelated to its core functionality. Given the amount of traffic (mis)spent on issues related to the XSL(T) features of FOP, I often wish it did not support this convenience function. But that's neither here nor there. G. On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Christopher R. Maden cr...@maden.org wrote: On 08/30/2011 10:52 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: actually, this is an FO issue, not XSL, since it is FOP that generates page numbers via fo:page-number XSL encompasses both Formatting Objects (sometimes XSL-FO) and XSL Tranformations (XSLT). An FO issue *is* an XSL issue. It is FOP that generates page numbers, but what Theresa needed was the FO instruction, which is agnostic about the software that consumes it (whether FOP, RenderX, Antenna House, or anything else). The XSL List (URL: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list/ ) covers all of XSL, including XSL-FO. We've previously had discussions on this list about allowing XML+XSLT as input to FOP, and the potential user confusion that results as to what FOP actually does. For similar reasons, when I reply to questions here, I try to make it clear what parts are specific to FOP, and which questions are about XML, XSLT, or FO, and orthogonal to FOP's operation specifically. the correct answer is that you need to use the initial-page-number property on fo:page-sequence to specify a different starting number than is generated by auto; see http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xsl11-20061205/#initial-page-number and and http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xsl11-20061205/#fo_page-sequence for details; Yes, and I apologize for not taking the time to look up the references that Theresa needs. ~Chris [Emotional content notice (since plain text is really bad at communicating this): I want to be very clear that I am not attacking or criticizing Glenn or Theresa. And certainly, I've known Glenn by his work for far too long to accuse him of anything remotely resembling ignorance. I have simply attempted to be somewhat detailed and pedantic here for maximal clarity to everyone who might read this.] -- Chris Maden, text nerd URL: http://crism.maden.org/ The present tendency and drift towards the Police State gives all free Americans pause.. - Alabama
Re: XSL vs. FOP [was: Re: pagenumbering]
I completely agree with the last sentence in your email. When I talk about mis-spending time, I am referring to discussions about the process of creating a valid XSLFO file. However, that is just my opinion. Someone else made the decision to include the XML via XSLT to XSLFO process in FOP, so we have to live with that. But since that is just a convenience function in FOP, and not an aspect of the core engine of FOP, I find discussions of the XML via XSTL to XSLFO process to be a distraction from the core features of FOP. If it had been my decision, I would not have included that convenience function in FOP, but that's irrelevant at this point. G. P.S. Though I wasn't a member of the XSL WG, I was an active participant of the XSL-FO subgroup from the time of its inauguration to the publishing of XSL 1.0. Prior to that I was an active participant in ISO SC18/WG8 in developing ISO/IEC 10179 Document Style Semantics and Specification Language (DSSSL), which was the logical precursor to both XSLT and XSL-FO. Indeed, I was an early proponent of separating the transformation and formatting aspects of DSSSL that was eventually translated into separate XSLT and XSL-FO specs. On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Eric Douglas edoug...@blockhouse.comwrote: ** Once someone has valid XSLFO and they're not getting the expected output then it's an FOP question. -- *From:* Glenn Adams [mailto:gl...@skynav.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:41 PM *To:* fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org *Subject:* Re: XSL vs. FOP [was: Re: pagenumbering] Christopher, We may be applying different ontological models here. I label anything having to do with XSL-FO as FO related. I label anything having to do with XSLT as XSL related. For me, FO related != XSL related. In fact, there is no necessary logical connection between the two, except insofar as FO borrows/reuses certain constructs from XSL(T), the only one of which I know of is the number to string conversion properties, which, coincidentally, have to do with the current subject matter: page number generation. In any case, by model, page number properties are FO related, not XSL related. Because FOP supports both XSL(T) [indirectly} and FO, it certainly covers both areas, but as far as I'm concerned the XSL(T) portion of it is a convenience function, unrelated to its core functionality. Given the amount of traffic (mis)spent on issues related to the XSL(T) features of FOP, I often wish it did not support this convenience function. But that's neither here nor there. G. On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Christopher R. Maden cr...@maden.orgwrote: On 08/30/2011 10:52 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: actually, this is an FO issue, not XSL, since it is FOP that generates page numbers via fo:page-number XSL encompasses both Formatting Objects (sometimes “XSL-FO”) and XSL Tranformations (XSLT). An FO issue *is* an XSL issue. It is FOP that generates page numbers, but what Theresa needed was the FO instruction, which is agnostic about the software that consumes it (whether FOP, RenderX, Antenna House, or anything else). The XSL List (URL: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list/ ) covers all of XSL, including XSL-FO. We’ve previously had discussions on this list about allowing XML+XSLT as input to FOP, and the potential user confusion that results as to what FOP actually does. For similar reasons, when I reply to questions here, I try to make it clear what parts are specific to FOP, and which questions are about XML, XSLT, or FO, and orthogonal to FOP’s operation specifically. the correct answer is that you need to use the initial-page-number property on fo:page-sequence to specify a different starting number than is generated by auto; see http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xsl11-20061205/#initial-page-number and and http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xsl11-20061205/#fo_page-sequence for details; Yes, and I apologize for not taking the time to look up the references that Theresa needs. ~Chris [Emotional content notice (since plain text is really bad at communicating this): I want to be very clear that I am not attacking or criticizing Glenn or Theresa. And certainly, I’ve known Glenn by his work for far too long to accuse him of anything remotely resembling ignorance. I have simply attempted to be somewhat detailed and pedantic here for maximal clarity to everyone who might read this.] -- Chris Maden, text nerd URL: http://crism.maden.org/ “The present tendency and drift towards the Police State gives all free Americans pause.” — Alabama Supreme Court, 1955 (Pike v. Southern Bell Tel. Telegraph, 81 So.2d 254) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: XSL vs. FOP [was: Re: pagenumbering]
s/the publishing of XSL 1.0/the publishing of XSL-FO 1.0/ On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:19 AM, Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com wrote: I completely agree with the last sentence in your email. When I talk about mis-spending time, I am referring to discussions about the process of creating a valid XSLFO file. However, that is just my opinion. Someone else made the decision to include the XML via XSLT to XSLFO process in FOP, so we have to live with that. But since that is just a convenience function in FOP, and not an aspect of the core engine of FOP, I find discussions of the XML via XSTL to XSLFO process to be a distraction from the core features of FOP. If it had been my decision, I would not have included that convenience function in FOP, but that's irrelevant at this point. G. P.S. Though I wasn't a member of the XSL WG, I was an active participant of the XSL-FO subgroup from the time of its inauguration to the publishing of XSL 1.0. Prior to that I was an active participant in ISO SC18/WG8 in developing ISO/IEC 10179 Document Style Semantics and Specification Language (DSSSL), which was the logical precursor to both XSLT and XSL-FO. Indeed, I was an early proponent of separating the transformation and formatting aspects of DSSSL that was eventually translated into separate XSLT and XSL-FO specs. On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Eric Douglas edoug...@blockhouse.comwrote: ** Once someone has valid XSLFO and they're not getting the expected output then it's an FOP question. -- *From:* Glenn Adams [mailto:gl...@skynav.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:41 PM *To:* fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org *Subject:* Re: XSL vs. FOP [was: Re: pagenumbering] Christopher, We may be applying different ontological models here. I label anything having to do with XSL-FO as FO related. I label anything having to do with XSLT as XSL related. For me, FO related != XSL related. In fact, there is no necessary logical connection between the two, except insofar as FO borrows/reuses certain constructs from XSL(T), the only one of which I know of is the number to string conversion properties, which, coincidentally, have to do with the current subject matter: page number generation. In any case, by model, page number properties are FO related, not XSL related. Because FOP supports both XSL(T) [indirectly} and FO, it certainly covers both areas, but as far as I'm concerned the XSL(T) portion of it is a convenience function, unrelated to its core functionality. Given the amount of traffic (mis)spent on issues related to the XSL(T) features of FOP, I often wish it did not support this convenience function. But that's neither here nor there. G. On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Christopher R. Maden cr...@maden.orgwrote: On 08/30/2011 10:52 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: actually, this is an FO issue, not XSL, since it is FOP that generates page numbers via fo:page-number XSL encompasses both Formatting Objects (sometimes “XSL-FO”) and XSL Tranformations (XSLT). An FO issue *is* an XSL issue. It is FOP that generates page numbers, but what Theresa needed was the FO instruction, which is agnostic about the software that consumes it (whether FOP, RenderX, Antenna House, or anything else). The XSL List (URL: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list/ ) covers all of XSL, including XSL-FO. We’ve previously had discussions on this list about allowing XML+XSLT as input to FOP, and the potential user confusion that results as to what FOP actually does. For similar reasons, when I reply to questions here, I try to make it clear what parts are specific to FOP, and which questions are about XML, XSLT, or FO, and orthogonal to FOP’s operation specifically. the correct answer is that you need to use the initial-page-number property on fo:page-sequence to specify a different starting number than is generated by auto; see http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xsl11-20061205/#initial-page-number and and http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xsl11-20061205/#fo_page-sequence for details; Yes, and I apologize for not taking the time to look up the references that Theresa needs. ~Chris [Emotional content notice (since plain text is really bad at communicating this): I want to be very clear that I am not attacking or criticizing Glenn or Theresa. And certainly, I’ve known Glenn by his work for far too long to accuse him of anything remotely resembling ignorance. I have simply attempted to be somewhat detailed and pedantic here for maximal clarity to everyone who might read this.] -- Chris Maden, text nerd URL: http://crism.maden.org/ “The present tendency and drift towards the Police State gives all free Americans pause.” — Alabama Supreme Court, 1955 (Pike v. Southern Bell Tel. Telegraph, 81 So.2d 254) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscr
XSL vs. FOP [was: Re: pagenumbering]
On 08/30/2011 10:52 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: actually, this is an FO issue, not XSL, since it is FOP that generates page numbers via fo:page-number XSL encompasses both Formatting Objects (sometimes “XSL-FO”) and XSL Tranformations (XSLT). An FO issue *is* an XSL issue. It is FOP that generates page numbers, but what Theresa needed was the FO instruction, which is agnostic about the software that consumes it (whether FOP, RenderX, Antenna House, or anything else). The XSL List (URL: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list/ ) covers all of XSL, including XSL-FO. We’ve previously had discussions on this list about allowing XML+XSLT as input to FOP, and the potential user confusion that results as to what FOP actually does. For similar reasons, when I reply to questions here, I try to make it clear what parts are specific to FOP, and which questions are about XML, XSLT, or FO, and orthogonal to FOP’s operation specifically. the correct answer is that you need to use the initial-page-number property on fo:page-sequence to specify a different starting number than is generated by auto; see http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xsl11-20061205/#initial-page-number and and http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xsl11-20061205/#fo_page-sequence for details; Yes, and I apologize for not taking the time to look up the references that Theresa needs. ~Chris [Emotional content notice (since plain text is really bad at communicating this): I want to be very clear that I am not attacking or criticizing Glenn or Theresa. And certainly, I’ve known Glenn by his work for far too long to accuse him of anything remotely resembling ignorance. I have simply attempted to be somewhat detailed and pedantic here for maximal clarity to everyone who might read this.] -- Chris Maden, text nerd URL: http://crism.maden.org/ “The present tendency and drift towards the Police State gives all free Americans pause.” — Alabama Supreme Court, 1955 (Pike v. Southern Bell Tel. Telegraph, 81 So.2d 254) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: XSL vs. FOP [was: Re: pagenumbering]
Christopher, We may be applying different ontological models here. I label anything having to do with XSL-FO as FO related. I label anything having to do with XSLT as XSL related. For me, FO related != XSL related. In fact, there is no necessary logical connection between the two, except insofar as FO borrows/reuses certain constructs from XSL(T), the only one of which I know of is the number to string conversion properties, which, coincidentally, have to do with the current subject matter: page number generation. In any case, by model, page number properties are FO related, not XSL related. Because FOP supports both XSL(T) [indirectly} and FO, it certainly covers both areas, but as far as I'm concerned the XSL(T) portion of it is a convenience function, unrelated to its core functionality. Given the amount of traffic (mis)spent on issues related to the XSL(T) features of FOP, I often wish it did not support this convenience function. But that's neither here nor there. G. On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Christopher R. Maden cr...@maden.orgwrote: On 08/30/2011 10:52 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: actually, this is an FO issue, not XSL, since it is FOP that generates page numbers via fo:page-number XSL encompasses both Formatting Objects (sometimes “XSL-FO”) and XSL Tranformations (XSLT). An FO issue *is* an XSL issue. It is FOP that generates page numbers, but what Theresa needed was the FO instruction, which is agnostic about the software that consumes it (whether FOP, RenderX, Antenna House, or anything else). The XSL List (URL: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list/ ) covers all of XSL, including XSL-FO. We’ve previously had discussions on this list about allowing XML+XSLT as input to FOP, and the potential user confusion that results as to what FOP actually does. For similar reasons, when I reply to questions here, I try to make it clear what parts are specific to FOP, and which questions are about XML, XSLT, or FO, and orthogonal to FOP’s operation specifically. the correct answer is that you need to use the initial-page-number property on fo:page-sequence to specify a different starting number than is generated by auto; see http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xsl11-20061205/#initial-page-number and and http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xsl11-20061205/#fo_page-sequence for details; Yes, and I apologize for not taking the time to look up the references that Theresa needs. ~Chris [Emotional content notice (since plain text is really bad at communicating this): I want to be very clear that I am not attacking or criticizing Glenn or Theresa. And certainly, I’ve known Glenn by his work for far too long to accuse him of anything remotely resembling ignorance. I have simply attempted to be somewhat detailed and pedantic here for maximal clarity to everyone who might read this.] -- Chris Maden, text nerd URL: http://crism.maden.org/ “The present tendency and drift towards the Police State gives all free Americans pause.” — Alabama Supreme Court, 1955 (Pike v. Southern Bell Tel. Telegraph, 81 So.2d 254) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Re: XSL vs. FOP [was: Re: pagenumbering]
On 08/30/2011 11:41 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: We may be applying different ontological models here. That does seem likely, since... I label anything having to do with XSL-FO as FO related. I label anything having to do with XSLT as XSL related. For me, FO related != XSL related. The XSL-FO language is defined in URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/ , “Extensible Stylesheet Language (XSL).” Early drafts did not even separate the transformation and formatting parts of XSL, but since the transformation was so useful on its own, it was spun out. However, formatting was the primary goal of the XSL work. IOW, FO *is* XSL. XSLT is a by-product, but is often (mistakenly) called “XSL.” Because FOP supports both XSL(T) [indirectly} and FO, it certainly covers both areas, but as far as I'm concerned the XSL(T) portion of it is a convenience function, unrelated to its core functionality. I concur with that... it is now clear that the only confusion is whether or not FO is part of XSL; I hope the title of the W3C Recommendation defining it clarifies that. [Argumentum ad verecundiam: I was on the W3C XSL Working Group from its inception in 1997 until 2002.] It is also quite clear at URL: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list/#introduction that XSL-FO is in scope for that list. I wouldn’t and can’t stop anyone from posting questions about FO here. However, I will try, in my answers, to make clear whether their questions pertain to FOP behavior or whether they would have the same questions regardless of which tool they were using. ~Chris -- Chris Maden, text nerd URL: http://crism.maden.org/ “The present tendency and drift towards the Police State gives all free Americans pause.” — Alabama Supreme Court, 1955 (Pike v. Southern Bell Tel. Telegraph, 81 So.2d 254) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org
