From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/16566 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dirar Bougatef Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Context against XSL Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:43:23 +0200 Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Message-ID: <415C1B8B.3030709@hotmail.com> Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1898743671==" X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1096556133 16352 80.91.229.6 (30 Sep 2004 14:55:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:55:33 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Thu Sep 30 16:55:20 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CD2L2-0007u9-00 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:55:20 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DE8C12783; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:55:19 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 15286-02; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:55:17 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0500E12777; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:55:17 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8217412777 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:55:16 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 15262-03 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:55:16 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from hotmail.com (unknown [64.4.35.192]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5E821276F for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:55:15 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 07:44:03 -0700 Original-Received: from 82.226.175.122 by bay12-dav18.bay12.hotmail.com with DAV; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:43:31 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [82.226.175.122] X-Originating-Email: [chabah5@hotmail.com] X-Sender: chabah5@hotmail.com User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Original-To: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Sep 2004 14:44:03.0026 (UTC) FILETIME=[EDD33320:01C4A6FB] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:16566 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:16566 --===============1898743671== Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi,

Does anyone have informations about tex macro packages and their advantages over XSL (previously known as XSL-FO) ?

I have read somewhere that tex is a good implementation of the XSL standard !

I think this is in regard that tex thinks in matter of boxes (Which is the equivalent of XSL blocks). I this case, is the difference between the two in the fact that at the end tex and macros are only algorithms for typesetting blocks automatically ?

Thanks.

Dirar.
--===============1898743671== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context --===============1898743671==-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/16567 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Hans Hagen Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: Context against XSL Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:06:31 +0200 Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Message-ID: <415C5937.5050900@wxs.nl> References: <415C1B8B.3030709@hotmail.com> Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1096571222 32470 80.91.229.6 (30 Sep 2004 19:07:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:07:02 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Thu Sep 30 21:06:41 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CD6GH-0006um-00 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:06:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86ADE12784; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:06:40 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 16089-02; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:06:36 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3170D1277B; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:06:36 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CC5E1277B for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:06:34 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 15986-05 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:06:33 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mailrelay01.solcon.nl (unknown [212.45.32.200]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495A112777 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:06:33 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from server-1.pragma-net.nl (dsl-212-84-128-085.solcon.nl [212.84.128.85]) by mailrelay01.solcon.nl (8.12.11/SQL-8.12.11-5/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i8UJ6SvU027517 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:06:28 +0200 Original-Received: by server-1.pragma-net.nl (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 21EDD2F244; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:06:32 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from [10.100.1.191] (unknown [10.100.1.191]) by server-1.pragma-net.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9195518030 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:06:30 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Original-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users In-Reply-To: <415C1B8B.3030709@hotmail.com> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80rc3/509/Wed Sep 29 11:09:42 2004 clamav-milter version 0.80c on mailrelay01 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:16567 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:16567 Dirar Bougatef wrote: > Does anyone have informations about tex macro packages and their > advantages over XSL (previously known as XSL-FO) ? > > I have read somewhere that tex is a good implementation of the XSL > standard ! > > I think this is in regard that tex thinks in matter of boxes (Which is > the equivalent of XSL blocks). I this case, is the difference between > the two in the fact that at the end tex and macros are only algorithms > for typesetting blocks automatically ? xsl is mostly a specification, and there are program soutthere that implement parts of is. The page model that xsl uses is not that advanced. Also, because you more or less make up the page, you also sort of disable all kind of clever things that batch processors like tex + macropackages may do. This means that xsl (fo) is suited for a certain range of typesetting tasks. From my experience your expectations should not be that high with regards to complex layouts. I'm on and off implementing an fo engine (foxet) and run into fuzziness with regards to the specs (a bad omen is that that there i could not find a good manual and the ones i have are made up rather poorly, which indicated that we're not so much dealing with high end typesetting, but with regular batchprocessing of not too complex documents). Recently i've been playing with css (from which xsl inherits much, which does not add to a clear design imo) and i'm surprised that browsers are so different that one ends up hacking around as much as one would using tex -) In many ways xsl is driven by the web, and not by real typesetting (is my guess). paper and screen are different things. What you use depends on what you need it for. For a long time, the midset of designers has been shaped by what page maker, quark, etc can and cannot do (therefore all those ragged right docs, where the limitations have become the standard). I fear that in the next couple of years the limited possibilities of for instance xsl will bring down the standards (if it can't be done, one will just lower the demands), which also fits in the short lifecycle of most documents. So, what to use when: - here i find that using tex directly (using the context xml parser) in most cases is rather efficient; the problem is always in getting (frequently inconsistent) designs done. In that respect my motto has become 'the problem does not change' - xslt is nice for preprocessing and manipulating documents and often one can get away with clean coding - some scripting is often needed as well (for instance in order to add typographical detail, which is rather easy to do with regexps in scripting languages) - xsl (fo), well for the moment i see it as a kind of 'placed xml'; when customers want us to use it, we'll do it (gives a feeling of independence), but in most cases using some direct mapping onto tex is not only easier (cheaper) but also gives a bit more control. It all depends on the design. - so: just use the best of all worlds (which is what xml is about: it's consistent -when used all right- and it can be transformed; interestingly there are quite some organizations out there that bind themselves to just one kind of xml handling app thereby contradicting the concept. In de time i want to write down something on these matters. Hans btw, there is a special mailing list for foxet; a preliminary version is in the alpha zip ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl ----------------------------------------------------------------- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/16570 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dirar Bougatef Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: Context against XSL Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:53:25 +0200 Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Message-ID: <415C7245.4060104@hotmail.com> References: <415C1B8B.3030709@hotmail.com> <415C5937.5050900@wxs.nl> Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1096579172 10692 80.91.229.6 (30 Sep 2004 21:19:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:19:32 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Thu Sep 30 23:19:15 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CD8KY-0001bi-00 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:19:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00A612789; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:19:13 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 16592-03; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:19:11 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 398431277F; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:19:11 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19A371277F for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:19:10 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 16461-06 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:19:09 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from hotmail.com (unknown [64.4.35.191]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24F431277A for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:19:08 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:54:00 -0700 Original-Received: from 82.226.175.122 by bay12-dav17.bay12.hotmail.com with DAV; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:53:42 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [82.226.175.122] X-Originating-Email: [chabah5@hotmail.com] X-Sender: chabah5@hotmail.com User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Original-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users In-Reply-To: <415C5937.5050900@wxs.nl> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Sep 2004 20:54:00.0763 (UTC) FILETIME=[9CB510B0:01C4A72F] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:16570 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:16570 Hans Hagen wrote: > Dirar Bougatef wrote: > >> Does anyone have informations about tex macro packages and their >> advantages over XSL (previously known as XSL-FO) ? >> >> I have read somewhere that tex is a good implementation of the XSL >> standard ! >> >> I think this is in regard that tex thinks in matter of boxes (Which >> is the equivalent of XSL blocks). I this case, is the difference >> between the two in the fact that at the end tex and macros are only >> algorithms for typesetting blocks automatically ? > > > xsl is mostly a specification, and there are program soutthere that > implement parts of is. The page model that xsl uses is not that > advanced. Also, because you more or less make up the page, you also > sort of disable all kind of clever things that batch processors like > tex + macropackages may do. This means that xsl (fo) is suited for a > certain range of typesetting tasks. From my experience your > expectations should not be that high with regards to complex layouts. > > I'm on and off implementing an fo engine (foxet) and run into > fuzziness with regards to the specs (a bad omen is that that there i > could not find a good manual and the ones i have are made up rather > poorly, which indicated that we're not so much dealing with high end > typesetting, but with regular batchprocessing of not too complex > documents). > > Recently i've been playing with css (from which xsl inherits much, > which does not add to a clear design imo) and i'm surprised that > browsers are so different that one ends up hacking around as much as > one would using tex -) In many ways xsl is driven by the web, and not > by real typesetting (is my guess). paper and screen are different things. > > What you use depends on what you need it for. For a long time, the > midset of designers has been shaped by what page maker, quark, etc can > and cannot do (therefore all those ragged right docs, where the > limitations have become the standard). I fear that in the next couple > of years the limited possibilities of for instance xsl will bring down > the standards (if it can't be done, one will just lower the demands), > which also fits in the short lifecycle of most documents. > > So, what to use when: > > - here i find that using tex directly (using the context xml parser) > in most cases is rather efficient; the problem is always in getting > (frequently inconsistent) designs done. In that respect my motto has > become 'the problem does not change' > > - xslt is nice for preprocessing and manipulating documents and often > one can get away with clean coding > > - some scripting is often needed as well (for instance in order to add > typographical detail, which is rather easy to do with regexps in > scripting languages) > > - xsl (fo), well for the moment i see it as a kind of 'placed xml'; > when customers want us to use it, we'll do it (gives a feeling of > independence), but in most cases using some direct mapping onto tex is > not only easier (cheaper) but also gives a bit more control. It all > depends on the design. > > - so: just use the best of all worlds (which is what xml is about: > it's consistent -when used all right- and it can be transformed; > interestingly there are quite some organizations out there that bind > themselves to just one kind of xml handling app thereby contradicting > the concept. > > In de time i want to write down something on these matters. > > Hans > > btw, there is a special mailing list for foxet; a preliminary version > is in the alpha zip > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE > Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands > tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com > | www.pragma-pod.nl > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > ntg-context mailing list > ntg-context@ntg.nl > http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context > > . > Hi Hans and thanks for your answers. > xsl is mostly a specification, and there are program soutthere that implement parts of is. The page model that xsl uses is not that advanced. Also, because you more or less make up the page, you also sort > of disable all kind of clever things that batch processors like tex + macropackages may do. This means that xsl (fo) is suited for a certain range of typesetting tasks. From my experience your expectations > should not be that high with regards to complex layouts. Do you mean that i went too far in my interpretation of XSL blocks as TEX boxes ? What i see is that XSL as you said is quiet the same thing as CSS2 hence it will support complex layouts (At the end it is only a matter of dividing your page into big or small boxes and the ability of accessing them, isn't it ?). In this case the difference with tex is only going to be that the last handles caracter (with ligatures etc.) and word spacing (with regard to hyphenation) according to some rules where the other doesn't. > .. xsl is driven by the web, and not by real typesetting (is my guess). paper and screen are different things. I have read an article that says that the whole matter about creating XSL was printed documents with all what this implies such as headers, footers, etc (The stuff that does not concern electronic documents). > i find that using tex directly (using the context xml parser) in most cases is rather efficient; the problem is always in getting (frequently inconsistent) designs done. In that respect my motto has become 'the > problem does not change' What do you mean by this. Is it that i have to stick to only few designs and avoid changing too much .. ? I would like to write my documents in XML, keep THEM on a server and generate PDF, when the user clicks on the link to my document. Of course i want to use Context to typeset my document. What can i use for this ? Have you already writen a parser for standard (e.g Docbook) documents ? Bye. Dirar. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/16571 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Hans Hagen Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: Context against XSL Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 00:35:08 +0200 Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Message-ID: <415C8A1C.5090404@wxs.nl> References: <415C1B8B.3030709@hotmail.com> <415C5937.5050900@wxs.nl> <415C7245.4060104@hotmail.com> Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1096583734 6635 80.91.229.6 (30 Sep 2004 22:35:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:35:34 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Fri Oct 01 00:35:17 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CD9W9-0007Ku-00 for ; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 00:35:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BAB712788; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 00:35:17 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 16786-05; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 00:35:12 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0E451277F; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 00:35:12 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D9581277F for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 00:35:11 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 17101-01 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 00:35:09 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mailrelay01.solcon.nl (unknown [212.45.32.200]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id D40411277A for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 00:35:09 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from server-1.pragma-net.nl (dsl-212-84-128-085.solcon.nl [212.84.128.85]) by mailrelay01.solcon.nl (8.12.11/SQL-8.12.11-5/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i8UMZ3JU031864 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 00:35:03 +0200 Original-Received: by server-1.pragma-net.nl (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 1B7D72F246; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 00:35:09 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from [10.100.1.191] (unknown [10.100.1.191]) by server-1.pragma-net.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id A47B12F241 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:35:07 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Original-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users In-Reply-To: <415C7245.4060104@hotmail.com> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80rc3/509/Wed Sep 29 11:09:42 2004 clamav-milter version 0.80c on mailrelay01 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:16571 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:16571 Dirar Bougatef wrote: > > xsl is mostly a specification, and there are program soutthere that > implement parts of is. The page model that xsl uses is not that > advanced. Also, because you more or less make up the page, you also sort > > of disable all kind of clever things that batch processors like tex + > macropackages may do. This means that xsl (fo) is suited for a certain > range of typesetting tasks. From my experience your expectations > > should not be that high with regards to complex layouts. > > Do you mean that i went too far in my interpretation of XSL blocks as > TEX boxes ? > What i see is that XSL as you said is quiet the same thing as CSS2 hence > it will support complex layouts (At the end it is only a matter of > dividing your page into big or small boxes and the ability of accessing > them, isn't it ?). In this case the difference with tex is only going to > be that the last handles caracter (with ligatures etc.) and word spacing > (with regard to hyphenation) according to some rules where the other > doesn't. there is more: pagebreaks, floats, marginal notes, etc those are the complicating factors > I have read an article that says that the whole matter about creating > XSL was printed documents with all what this implies such as headers, > footers, etc (The stuff that does not concern electronic documents). indeed, simple docs with only headers and footers -) > > i find that using tex directly (using the context xml parser) in most > cases is rather efficient; the problem is always in getting (frequently > inconsistent) designs done. In that respect my motto has become 'the > > problem does not change' > > What do you mean by this. Is it that i have to stick to only few designs > and avoid changing too much .. ? no, that depending on the layout/design, finding a solution for some problem will always be difficult; kind of: it's nice to use some 4th generation language, but it still leaves us with the 10% hard work in a 3th one; look at all those editors we see around us: it's no big deal to cut and past a basic editor from components readily available, making a real good one is still some work -) > I would like to write my documents in XML, keep THEM on a server and > generate PDF, when the user clicks on the link to my document. > Of course i want to use Context to typeset my document. What can i use > for this ? Have you already writen a parser for standard (e.g Docbook) > documents ? some have, not me; it's a matter of mapping elements onto context thingies, the parser is already there; just peek in the x-* files Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl ----------------------------------------------------------------- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/16572 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Taco Hoekwater Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: Context against XSL Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 08:52:20 +0200 Organization: Elvenkind Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Message-ID: <20041001085220.26813ea0.taco@elvenkind.com> References: <415C1B8B.3030709@hotmail.com> <415C5937.5050900@wxs.nl> Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1096613571 21687 80.91.229.6 (1 Oct 2004 06:52:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 06:52:51 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Fri Oct 01 08:52:38 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CDHHS-0005Ms-00 for ; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 08:52:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD9BB12784; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 08:52:37 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 19588-05; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 08:52:36 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id F411E1276D; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 08:52:35 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 927E61276D for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 08:52:35 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 19574-06-2 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 08:52:34 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from post-23.mail.nl.demon.net (unknown [194.159.73.193]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7861126F8 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 08:52:34 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from boo.demon.nl ([82.161.175.147]:37724 helo=hal.chatalicious.net) by post-23.mail.nl.demon.net with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CDHHJ-00032o-PD for ntg-context@ntg.nl; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:52:29 +0000 Original-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users In-Reply-To: <415C5937.5050900@wxs.nl> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.5 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i586-mandrake-linux-gnu) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:16572 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:16572 Hans Hagen wrote: > I'm on and off implementing an fo engine (foxet) and run into fuzziness > with regards to the specs (a bad omen is that that there i could not > find a good manual and the ones i have are made up rather poorly, which > indicated that we're not so much dealing with high end typesetting, but > with regular batchprocessing of not too complex documents). The longer one has to read in the XSL-FO specification, the more one resents having to do so. If you are lookiing for a road towards creating pdf documents, then ConTeXt is like an actual freeway with perhaps a few potholes and missing roadsigns, where XSL-FO is a set of directions on how to create a jungle road, written down by a civil engineer with terrible handwriting mirroring a quite chaotic mind who nonetheless insists on doing everything "the right way"(tm). Various people have been busy trying to build that road according to the specifications, and some of the toll (payfare) roads are in fact reasonably close. I'm speaking with a certain fondness in my voice really, because I am also busy implementing a (commercial) fo engine using ConTeXt. Greetings, Taco From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/16575 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Hans Hagen Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: Context against XSL Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:25:32 +0200 Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Message-ID: <415D228C.90905@wxs.nl> References: <415C1B8B.3030709@hotmail.com> <415C5937.5050900@wxs.nl> <20041001085220.26813ea0.taco@elvenkind.com> Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1096622753 18129 80.91.229.6 (1 Oct 2004 09:25:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:25:53 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Fri Oct 01 11:25:36 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CDJfU-00066t-00 for ; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:25:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 736071278C; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:25:34 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 20264-06-3; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:25:32 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4DF512780; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:25:32 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA40512780 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:25:31 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 20264-06-2 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:25:31 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mailrelay02.solcon.nl (unknown [212.45.32.200]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02F811277A for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:25:31 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from server-1.pragma-net.nl (dsl-212-84-128-085.solcon.nl [212.84.128.85]) by mailrelay02.solcon.nl (8.12.11/SQL-8.12.11-5/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i919PTuO004301 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:25:29 +0200 Original-Received: by server-1.pragma-net.nl (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 92A3B2EB3C; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:25:30 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from [10.100.1.191] (unknown [10.100.1.191]) by server-1.pragma-net.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 156382EA15 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:25:29 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Original-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users In-Reply-To: <20041001085220.26813ea0.taco@elvenkind.com> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80rc3/509/Wed Sep 29 11:09:42 2004 clamav-milter version 0.80c on mailrelay02 X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:16575 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:16575 Taco Hoekwater wrote: > Hans Hagen wrote: > > >>I'm on and off implementing an fo engine (foxet) and run into fuzziness >>with regards to the specs (a bad omen is that that there i could not >>find a good manual and the ones i have are made up rather poorly, which >>indicated that we're not so much dealing with high end typesetting, but >>with regular batchprocessing of not too complex documents). > > > The longer one has to read in the XSL-FO specification, the more one > resents having to do so. If you are lookiing for a road towards creating > pdf documents, then ConTeXt is like an actual freeway with perhaps a few > potholes and missing roadsigns, where XSL-FO is a set of directions on how > to create a jungle road, written down by a civil engineer with terrible > handwriting mirroring a quite chaotic mind who nonetheless insists on > doing everything "the right way"(tm). you're right! unfortunately those engineers can ride on the back of the horse with xml painted all over it, which makes it good by principle for those who pay them; an interesting aspect of this is that while xml opens many roads, the tendensy is towards taking one road; there is probably some thinking behind this that we suddenly can solve all problems for ever and do with one road. btw, as with much xml related things: much of what is around as 'standard' is actually just a reversed engineered application interface, or worse: serving as an interface to different applications which makes it fuzzy; take xsl: there are a lot of dupplicate attributes just to serve css; this is strange because the whole idea behind xslt (which is mostly ok) is that one can transform, so there is no need for those duplicates. The engineer serves to many masters. apart from the specs, fo lacks a real proper box model: (like css, there is no real way to do for instance vertical alignment comparable with tex's fill's); it somehow started from the wrong angle; and then .. how about math, chemistry, etc -) a long road ahead > Various people have been busy trying to build that road according to the > specifications, and some of the toll (payfare) roads are in fact reasonably > close. I'm speaking with a certain fondness in my voice really, because I > am also busy implementing a (commercial) fo engine using ConTeXt. -) comparisons between the not-taco engines show big differences (also in price) and as soon as extensions start coming into the picture, the 'acclaimed advantage of fo' disappears. Some peeople pay five digit numbers for engines where formulas has to be included as graphic. I sometimes wonder if it makes sense to cook up an alternative model on top of context -) Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl ----------------------------------------------------------------- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/16578 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nikolai Weibull Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: Context against XSL Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:53:22 +0200 Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Message-ID: <20041001105322.GB9959@puritan.pcp.ath.cx> References: <415C1B8B.3030709@hotmail.com> <415C5937.5050900@wxs.nl> <20041001085220.26813ea0.taco@elvenkind.com> <415D228C.90905@wxs.nl> Reply-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1096628137 4015 80.91.229.6 (1 Oct 2004 10:55:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 10:55:37 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Fri Oct 01 12:55:14 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CDL4D-0003Mk-00 for ; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:55:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32D0612780; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:55:13 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 21279-03; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:55:13 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD14C1277A; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:53:29 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FDC41277A for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:53:28 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 21202-03 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:53:27 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from mxfep02.bredband.com (unknown [195.54.107.73]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8416F1276D for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:53:27 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from puritan.pcp.ath.cx ([213.112.43.197] [213.112.43.197]) by mxfep02.bredband.com with ESMTP id <20041001105322.OBZQ27821.mxfep02.bredband.com@puritan.pcp.ath.cx> for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:53:22 +0200 Original-Received: by puritan.pcp.ath.cx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2E84AAE041; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:53:22 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <415D228C.90905@wxs.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:16578 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:16578 * Hans Hagen [Oct 01, 2004 12:40]: > comparisons between the not-taco engines show big differences (also in > price) and as soon as extensions start coming into the picture, the > 'acclaimed advantage of fo' disappears. Some peeople pay five digit > numbers for engines where formulas has to be included as graphic. Heh, serious? That's incredible. I'm really beginning to doubt the "authoring in XML"-bandwagon's legitimacy. nikolai -- ::: name: Nikolai Weibull :: aliases: pcp / lone-star / aka ::: ::: born: Chicago, IL USA :: loc atm: Gothenburg, Sweden ::: ::: page: www.pcppopper.org :: fun atm: gf,lps,ruby,lisp,war3 ::: main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);} From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/16579 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Matt Gushee Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: Re: Context against XSL Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:18:47 -0600 Sender: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Message-ID: <20041001171847.GA4018@swordfish> References: <415C1B8B.3030709@hotmail.com> <415C5937.5050900@wxs.nl> <20041001085220.26813ea0.taco@elvenkind.com> <415D228C.90905@wxs.nl> <20041001105322.GB9959@puritan.pcp.ath.cx> Reply-To: Matt Gushee , mailing list for ConTeXt users NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1096651135 26164 80.91.229.6 (1 Oct 2004 17:18:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 17:18:55 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl Fri Oct 01 19:18:39 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl ([131.211.172.88] helo=ronja.ntg.nl) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CDR3G-00031a-00 for ; Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:18:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AE6B12784; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:18:38 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 02787-06; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:18:35 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.vet.uu.nl (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62B6A1276D; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:18:35 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A8BC1276D for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:18:33 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from ronja.ntg.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (ronja.vet.uu.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 03030-01-2 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:18:32 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from swordfish.havenrock.com (unknown [216.241.35.41]) by ronja.ntg.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEEEB126F8 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:18:31 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: by swordfish.havenrock.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 873302F32; Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:18:47 -0600 (MDT) Original-To: mailing list for ConTeXt users Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041001105322.GB9959@puritan.pcp.ath.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl X-BeenThere: ntg-context@ntg.nl X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: mailing list for ConTeXt users List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ntg-context-bounces@ntg.nl X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at ntg.nl Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:16579 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:16579 On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 12:53:22PM +0200, Nikolai Weibull wrote: > * Hans Hagen [Oct 01, 2004 12:40]: > > comparisons between the not-taco engines show big differences (also in > > price) and as soon as extensions start coming into the picture, the > > 'acclaimed advantage of fo' disappears. Some peeople pay five digit > > numbers for engines where formulas has to be included as graphic. > > Heh, serious? That's incredible. I'm really beginning to doubt the > "authoring in XML"-bandwagon's legitimacy. > nikolai You and most of the XML community (I once claimed to be part of that, but have lately tried to distance myself, partly for the reasons being discussed here). The original idea was that XML would be a new and better way to author *Web documents*. Somewhere along the line it morphed into a general-purpose, universal data exchange format, in which capacity it serves reasonably well (though it likely should have been designed differently, had people foreseen how it would actually be used). Meanwhile, a ragged band of diehards continued trying to develop and promote XML specifically as a web technology and/or a document technology, but I think very few people have much hope in that area any more. There was an article on O'Reilly Network's XML.com in July entitled "XML on the Web has Failed"; that may not settle the question, but such a statement would have been unthinkable 2 or 3 years ago. But to get back to the question of XSL: a couple of years ago I was looking for a way to generate print-ready documents from XML. I tried the then-latest version of FOP, which was and maybe still is the most popular open-source XSL-FO processor. I was amazed, after several years of its development by the Apache project, how many features were unimplemented, including some that I considered obvious and important for complex documents (I think, for example, there was no way to do footnotes). In hindsight, this probably shouldn't have been surprising. Print documents are complex, and few people are interested in them, relative to the Web. There probably aren't enough users or interested programmers to support more than a couple of high-quality products in this problem space. Anyway, when I found that FOP wouldn't meet my needs, I started searching for something else--and found ConTeXt. Architecturally, it may not have XSL's Neoclassical tidiness, but it has one huge advantage: it works. -- Matt Gushee When a nation follows the Way, Haven Rock Press Horses bear manure through Englewood, Colorado, USA its fields; books@havenrock.com When a nation ignores the Way, Horses bear soldiers through its streets. --Lao Tzu (Peter Merel, trans.)