Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [XSL-FO] Re: 1.1.2 Formatting ...please help

Expand Messages
  • AndrewWatt2001@aol.com
    In a message dated 16/01/01 19:14:49 GMT Standard Time, r_diblasi@hotmail.com ... Robert, Due to time constraints I will respond only to this question at
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 16, 2001
      In a message dated 16/01/01 19:14:49 GMT Standard Time, r_diblasi@...
      writes:

      > "with objects primarily in the "formatting object" namespace."????
      >
      > What is the spec trying to say????

      Robert,

      Due to time constraints I will respond only to this question at present.

      The XSL-FO spec uses three terms (as I read it) for the same thing - in each
      case the namespace URI is http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format.

      The spec, as I recall, uses three terms each of which appears to me to refer
      to that same namespace URI and therefore mean the same.

      The three terms are:

      1. XSL Namespace
      2. "fo" namespace
      3. "formatting objects" namespace

      I am doing all this from memory so forgive me if I slip up on a word or two.

      The spec also goes on to refer to "the" XSL Namespace.

      But there are, in fact, two "XSL" Namespaces. XSL consists of both XSLT and
      XSL-FO. The CR needs to edited more tightly in my opinion to reflect that
      reality.

      There is (my terms)
      1. An XSLT namespace for which the namespace URI is
      http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform
      and
      2. An XSL-FO namespace for which the namespace URI is
      http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format.

      Since both XSLT and XSL-FO **together** constitute "XSL" we have two distinct
      "XSL" namespaces with the respective namespace URIs which I have just given.

      In my view the XSL spec editors need to take that on board and introduce
      greater precision and consistency in the use of terms.

      I posted on another list recently about a related issue. I will try to dig
      that out and post it within the next hour or two.

      Andrew Watt
    • r_diblasi@hotmail.com
      Hello Chris, Bingo.... That is what I was looking for...a simple, boiled down, no nonsence, explanation......I hope thats what we are are looking for!! nice
      Message 2 of 6 , Jan 16, 2001
        Hello Chris,

        Bingo....
        That is what I was looking for...a simple, boiled down, no
        nonsence, explanation......I hope thats what we are are looking for!!

        nice touch....adding the SVG namespace :-)

        thanks for your comment
        Robert A. DiBlasi


        --- In XSL-FO@egroups.com, "Chris Ryland" <cpr@e...> wrote:

        I think all it's trying to say is that, after tree transformation by
        XLST, the resulting tree is mostly FO objects (with the possibility
        of other namespace objects, such as SVG).

        Cheers!
        Chris Ryland * Em Software, Inc. * www.emsoftware.com
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: r_diblasi@h...
        > To: XSL-FO@egroups.com
        > Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 10:27 AM
        > Subject: [XSL-FO] Re: 1.1.2 Formatting ...please help
        >
        >
        > Hello Andrew,
        >
        > Amen.....
        > I believe your "crack" at the concept that was trying to
        be
        > explained in the XSL spec is much clearer.
        >
        > I still think that the uses of "result tree" (XSLT term I
        > believe) and "element and attribute tree" can cause trouble if
        used
        > loosely....
        >
        > I'm still having trouble with a phrase that is used:
        > "Tree transformation constructs the result tree. In XSL,
        > this tree is called the element and attribute tree, with objects
        > primarily in the "formatting object" namespace."
        >
        >
        > "with objects primarily in the "formatting object" namespace."????
        >
        > What is the spec trying to say????
      • Chris Ryland
        I think all it s trying to say is that, after tree transformation by XLST, the resulting tree is mostly FO objects (with the possibility of other namespace
        Message 3 of 6 , Jan 16, 2001
          I think all it's trying to say is that, after tree transformation by XLST, the resulting tree is mostly FO objects (with the possibility of other namespace objects, such as SVG).

          Cheers!
          Chris Ryland * Em Software, Inc. * www.emsoftware.com
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 10:27 AM
          Subject: [XSL-FO] Re: 1.1.2 Formatting ...please help

          Hello Andrew,

          Amen.....
                 I believe your "crack" at the concept that was trying to be
          explained in the XSL spec is much clearer.

                I still think that the uses of "result tree" (XSLT term I
          believe) and "element and attribute tree" can cause trouble if  used
          loosely....

          I'm still having trouble with a phrase that is used:
                   "Tree transformation constructs the result tree. In XSL,
          this tree is called the element and attribute tree, with objects
          primarily in the "formatting object" namespace."


          "with objects primarily in the "formatting object" namespace."????

          What is the spec trying to say????
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.