> > One of the key ideas to take away from ConTeXt's XML manual <http:// > www.pragma-ade.com/show-man-15.htm> is that there are *many* different > paths to take when processing XML.
But this makes me confused. You can have <context:text> and <fx:text>. If I am understanding things correctly, each of these namespaces refers to a document that already pre-defines the mapping. I could also make up my own mapping, and use the namespace <paul:myElement>? Although this allows each user to create his own XML vocabulary, I would argue that such an XML vocabulary already exists: FO. The FO XML language is well-thought out and thorough. I see no sense in developing completely differnt XML vocabularies as work arounds until fotex is mature enough to handle the FO vocabulary directly. Creating these workaround vocabularies adds another layer to processing and seems to add to the complexity of processing XML. It seems simpler to think in terms of raw (non XML) ConTeXt. That way, if you have a question about formatting, you will find the answer relatively easy on the mailing list. I hope I am understanding things correctly. I want to develop a sound XML => ConTeXt strategy, so don't want to overlook any of ConTeXt's native XML abiblities. >You can now take a 100% XML path with XSL-FO, now, but that misses >out on so much of ConTeXt's excellent capabilities. Yes, I completely agree. Paul -- ************************ *Paul Tremblay * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * ************************ _______________________________________________ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
