xmlgraphics-fop-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>
Subject Re: XSL vs. FOP [was: Re: pagenumbering]
Date Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:36:15 GMT
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 <glenn@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 <edouglas@blockhouse.com>wrote:
>> **
>> Once someone has valid XSLFO and they're not getting the expected output
>> then it's an FOP question.
>>  ------------------------------
>> *From:* Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@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 <crism@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 v. Southern Bell Tel. & Telegraph, 81 So.2d 254)
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org

View raw message