Mailing-List: contact general-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <37259430.7795B0BE@step.pl>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 12:40:48 +0200
From: Andrzej Dmoch <and@step.pl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: general@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: AW: Reverse XSL:FO
References: <4094ADEA26D8D3119F020000D1106EC42254@BLAHFASEL>
 <38FF70F2.FC0DBA78@apache.org> <39006097.433E392A@step.pl>
 <39061223.1ED69C39@apache.org> <3906C539.2475A334@step.pl>
 <3906FBF4.48459498@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

> Because it would not make sense. The XML publishing model is different
> from PDF even if has many parts in common. For example, the use of
> namespaces allows the integration of other capabilities without messing
> up with the language itself, thing that is not possible with PDF. For
> example, FO + SMIL integration opposed to PDF with video support.

I understand but it sounds a bit like science-fiction right now. We only have one XSL:FO
-> PDF converter which produces PDF with no integration with languages like SMIL. I think
there are no tools for the processing model you presented. But there are a lot of tools
for publishing giants like TeX, PDF, Postscript.
Porting XML to them (which is not directly publishing format) could be very economical
(especially with the use of XSLT as a transforming tool).
Just allowing to add a semantic layer to published documents and reusing all existing
tools.

Andrzej