W. Eliot Kimber wrote:
I'm personally very appreciate what are you doing for xsl-fo, Eliot and I understand your frustration, but you see, we are rather small team and we do our best. Unfortunately FOP doesn't have such a support from software giants like, for example, xalan project have so our resources are very limited.I feel a need to say something about my frustration with FOP, because I think it's a potential issue for the XSL FO world in general and it concerns me, especially as a person who's working very hard to try to advance the acceptance and use of FO, both through educating potential users and working with the various implementations to identify flaws and suggest improvements.
Well, seems to me your opinion is a good argument for input validation module I was talked about recently. We desperately need a module at the input to report validation errors, unimplemented warnings etc in a human readable form. dtd and schema validation doesn't fit the needs, but schematron schema fits perfectly. As afaik xsl-fo schematron schema doesn't exist yet (XEP3 uses schematron-like xsl for validation) I'm trying to develop such one. So it's a matter of time.My fear, already borne out by some personal experience, is that FOP will give people a bad first impression of XSL FO, making them think that FO is much more limited than it is. We've already seen a number of posts to the various FO-related forums where people have confused FOP and XSL-FO, thinking that a limitation in the current version of FOP is a limitation in XSL-FO generally.
+ documentation, which is updated already.
--
Oleg Tkachenko
eXperanto team
Multiconn Technologies, Israel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
