This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: XSL FO
- To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com, fop-dev at xml dot apache dot org
- Subject: Re: XSL FO
- From: Arved Sandstrom <Arved_37 at chebucto dot ns dot ca>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 06:22:05 -0300
- References: <14698.59036.721097.402516@spqr.oucs.ox.ac.uk><4.2.2.20000711085113.00d26eb0@pop.nottingham.ac.uk><85256918.004EBCA2.00@D51MTA03.pok.ibm.com><4.2.2.20000711095340.00caacc0@pop.nottingham.ac.uk><14698.59036.721097.402516@spqr.oucs.ox.ac.uk>
- Reply-To: xsl-list at mulberrytech dot com
At 11:12 PM 7/11/00 -0400, Tony Graham wrote:
>
>Taking XSLFO off the XSL-List and away from the T'ers seems like a
>very poor way to advance the cause. If people don't see that things
>are happening with XSLFO, they will just assume that no progress has
>been made. A lively discussion of XSLFO on the XSL-List will show
>that XSLFO is alive and well, but if you take XSLFO off the XSL-List,
>you'll have trouble bringing it back to the attention of the list.
>
>Furthermore, there is little evidence yet that XSLFO can support a
>second mailing list of its own. If you add together the user
>questions on this list, the XSLFO posts on the XSL-List, and the
>occasional XSLFO post on XML-Dev, you still wouldn't have a very
>active list.
From one perspective XSLFO already does support a second mailing list: the
fop-dev list at XML Apache.
That being said, I support your view that XSLFO ought to be discussed here.
fop-dev already entertains a class of posts that have to do with usage, and
these are more appropriate (I think) for this forum.
I've been personally remiss in not making use of _this_ list, and have
rectified that. I think that we (the FOP project) can also use this list as
a mechanism for reporting on the current state of the art, as can other
implementers.
>Maybe XSLFO posts on the XSL-List can standardise on a prefix such as
>"[FO]" so they are easier to locate among the XSLT posts. People can
>also provide feedback on what they think the XSL-List web page,
>etc. should say about XSLFO. Feedback will be read, and will be acted
>upon as appropriate.
Makes sense. I think the concern has been expressed that FO-related posts
will get swallowed up, but OTOH, who knows until you try. :-)
>I also think that people on this list such as Sebastian and Dave
>Pawson, to name just two, have been useful enough on the XSL-List that
>most people would indulge them talking about XSLFO even if the people
>don't use XSLFO themselves.
>
>I'm not trying to keep XSLFO on the XSL-List for the sake of the
>XSL-List, but because I think that it's counterproductive to take it
>off the XSL-List.
>
We (FOP types) can start publicizing the XSL List. I guess we can explore
how you guys can publicize us.
Regards, Arved Sandstrom
Senior Developer
e-plicity.com (www.e-plicity.com)
Halifax, Nova Scotia
"B2B Wireless in Canada's Ocean Playground"
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list