Re: Context against XSL

[Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl>]

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
-----------------------------------------------------------------