Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-xmlgraphics-fop-users-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-xmlgraphics-fop-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 41D5D797B for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:37:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 42393 invoked by uid 500); 31 Aug 2011 16:37:01 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-xmlgraphics-fop-users-archive@xmlgraphics.apache.org Received: (qmail 42317 invoked by uid 500); 31 Aug 2011 16:37:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org Received: (qmail 42310 invoked by uid 99); 31 Aug 2011 16:37:00 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:37:00 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_NEUTRAL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [209.85.160.182] (HELO mail-gy0-f182.google.com) (209.85.160.182) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:36:56 +0000 Received: by gyd10 with SMTP id 10so977413gyd.27 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:36:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.183.131 with SMTP id q3mr3256413yhm.96.1314808595200; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:36:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.108.180 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:36:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4E5CF572.9040405@maden.org> <4E5CFDDE.2080804@maden.org> From: Glenn Adams Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:36:15 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: XSL vs. FOP [was: Re: pagenumbering] To: fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf305b122c43b96804abcfbb2a --20cf305b122c43b96804abcfbb2a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 wrote: > I completely agree with the last sentence in your email. When I talk abou= t > "mis-spending" time, I am referring to discussions about the process of > creating a valid XSLFO file. However, that is just my opinion. Someone el= se > 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 t= he > 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 convenien= ce > 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 o= f > 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 Langu= age > (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 wr= ote: > >> ** >> 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 !=3D XSL related. >> >> In fact, there is no necessary logical connection between the two, excep= t >> insofar as FO borrows/reuses certain constructs from XSL(T), the only on= e 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 cover= s >> 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 functi= on. >> But that's neither here nor there. >> >> G. >> >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Christopher R. Maden w= rote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>> XSL encompasses both Formatting Objects (sometimes =E2=80=9CXSL-FO=E2= =80=9D) 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 () covers >>> all of XSL, including XSL-FO. >>> >>> We=E2=80=99ve previously had discussions on this list about allowing XM= L+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=E2=80=99s o= peration >>> 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=E2=80=99ve 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 pedanti= c >>> here for maximal clarity to everyone who might read this.] >>> -- >>> Chris Maden, text nerd >>> =E2=80=9CThe present tendency and drift towards the Police State gives = all >>> free Americans pause.=E2=80=9D =E2=80=94 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 >>> >>> >> > --20cf305b122c43b96804abcfbb2a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 sente= nce in your email. When I talk about "mis-spending" time, I am re= ferring to discussions about the process of creating a valid XSLFO file. Ho= wever, that is just my opinion. Someone else made the decision to include t= he 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 decis= ion, I would not have included that convenience function in FOP, but that&#= 39;s irrelevant at this point.

G.

<= div>P.S. Though I wasn't a member of the XSL WG, I was an active partic= ipant of the XSL-FO subgroup from the time of its inauguration to the publi= shing 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 Lan= guage (DSSSL), which was the logical precursor to both XSLT and XSL-FO. Ind= eed, I was an early proponent of separating the transformation and formatti= ng aspects of DSSSL that was eventually translated into separate XSLT and X= SL-FO specs.


On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Eric Dougla= s <edouglas@blockhouse.com> wrote:
Once=20 someone has valid XSLFO and they're not getting the expected output the= n it's an=20 FOP question.

From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]=20
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:41 PM
To:=20 fop-u= sers@xmlgraphics.apache.org
Subject: Re: XSL vs. FOP [was: Re= :=20 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 !=3D XSL related.

In fact, there is no necessary logical connection between the two, exc= ept=20 insofar as FO borrows/reuses certain constructs from XSL(T), the only one o= f=20 which I know of is the number to string conversion properties, which,=20 coincidentally, have to do with the current subject matter: page number=20 generation.

In any case, by model, page number properties are FO related, not XSL= =20 related.

Because FOP supports both XSL(T) [indirectly} and FO, it certainly cov= ers=20 both areas, but as far as I'm concerned the XSL(T) portion of it is a= =20 convenience function, unrelated to its core functionality.

Given the amount of traffic (mis)spent on issues related to the XSL(T)= =20 features of FOP, I often wish it did not support this convenience function.= But=20 that's neither here nor there.

G.

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Christopher R. = Maden=20 <= crism@maden.org> wrote:
On 08/30/2011 10:52 AM, Glenn Adams w= rote:
> actually,=20 this is an FO issue, not XSL, since it is FOP that
> generates page= =20 numbers via <fo:page-number>

XSL encompasses both Formatting= =20 Objects (sometimes =E2=80=9CXSL-FO=E2=80=9D) and XSL
Tranformations (X= SLT). =C2=A0An FO=20 issue *is* an XSL issue.

It is FOP that generates page numbers, bu= t=20 what Theresa needed was the
FO instruction, which is agnostic about th= e=20 software that consumes it
(whether FOP, RenderX, Antenna House, or any= thing=20 else).

The XSL List (<URL: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-lis= t/ >)=20 covers
all of XSL, including XSL-FO.

We=E2=80=99ve previously h= ad=20 discussions on this list about allowing XML+XSLT as
input to FOP, and = the=20 potential user confusion that results as to what
FOP actually does.=20 =C2=A0For similar reasons, when I reply to questions here,
I try to ma= ke it=20 clear what parts are specific to FOP, and which
questions are about XM= L,=20 XSLT, or FO, and orthogonal to FOP=E2=80=99s operation
specifically.
>=20 the correct answer is that you need to use the initial-page-number
>= ;=20 property on fo:page-sequence to specify a different starting number
&g= t;=20 than is generated by "auto";
>
> see http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xsl11-20061205/#initial-page-number
>=20 and and
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xsl11-200= 61205/#fo_page-sequence=20 for
> details;

Yes, and I apologize for not taking the time = to=20 look up the references
that Theresa needs.

~Chris

[Emoti= onal=20 content notice (since plain text is really bad at
communicating this):= I=20 want to be very clear that I am not attacking or
criticizing Glenn or= =20 Theresa. =C2=A0And certainly, I=E2=80=99ve known Glenn by his
work for= far too long=20 to accuse him of anything remotely resembling
ignorance. =C2=A0I have= =20 simply attempted to be somewhat detailed and pedantic
here for maximal= =20 clarity to everyone who might read this.]
--
Chris Maden, text nerd= =20 =C2=A0<URL: http= ://crism.maden.org/ >
=E2=80=9CThe present tendency and=20 drift towards the Police State gives all
=C2=A0free Americans pause.= =E2=80=9D =E2=80=94=20 Alabama Supreme Court, 1955
=C2=A0(Pike v. Southern Bell Tel. &=20 Telegraph, 81 So.2d=20 254)

-------------------------------------------------------------= --------
To=20 unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org<= /a>
For=20 additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org



--20cf305b122c43b96804abcfbb2a--