Re: [xsl] FO Comparison to HTML and PDF

["Raul Rodriguez" <raulnyc at hotmail dot com>]

Thanks so much for setting my prespective on track

Ciao

Raul

>From: "Christopher R. Maden" <crism@maden.org>
>Reply-To: xsl-list@lists.mulberrytech.com
>To: xsl-list@lists.mulberrytech.com
>Subject: Re: [xsl] FO Comparison to HTML and PDF
>Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 01:50:52 -0800
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>At 03:43 31-10-2001, Raul Rodriguez wrote:
> >I am putting together a white paper advocating FO to be used in our
> >products and services.  For the layperson, I wrote a section called, "How
> >Does FO Compare to PDF and HTML?" and made this scale diagram
> >
> >
> >Content <=====================================> Fidelity
> >       |                |                    |
> >      HTML              FO                   PDF
>
>I'm not entirely clear on what your aim is.  Are you pitching FO as a
>content preparation or storage format?  If so, I think that's a terrible
>idea; in some ways, it combines the worst elements of HTML and PDF, as your
>control isn't total but you don't have any meaning present.
>
>While there is nothing to stop you from using FO that way, FO is really
>intended to be used, as the XSL Recommendation suggests, with XML source
>documents and XSLT.  What this really gives the management is HTML *and*
>PDF at the same time - the XML source can drive creation of both output
>formats, and more, as needed.
>
>As a delivery format, FO is somewhat useless, as there are very few native
>rendering implementations; generally, FO is processed into PDF (and
>possibly thence to print) for final human consumption.
>
>So I might suggest a different diagram, with a different approach:
>
>Content =================================> Delivery
>           |                               |
>          XML --------XSLT--------FO----> PDF
>                        |---------------> HTML
>                        |---------------> text
>                        |---------------> database
>
>The real selling point (and I realize I'm preaching almost entirely to the
>choir here) is that semantic markup (e.g., XML) describes your data in a
>content-neutral way.  Binding the presentation later means that not only
>can you get multiple output formats more easily, but it also means that
>changing those outputs is much easier.  If the house style changes, a
>modification to one stylesheet can produce the new style across the board,
>rather than running laborious search-and-replace efforts on many documents.
>
>As far as page fidelity goes - when it's important, it's important, and
>marketing collateral is often best created in PageMaker or Illustrator.
>
>~Chris
>
>[I'm a bit surprised to see only one other reply to this.  Perhaps they all
>went off-list as being a bit off-topic... I'll take my chances.]
>- --
>Christopher R. Maden, Principal Consultant, HMM Consulting Int'l, Inc.
>DTDs/schemas - conversion - ebooks - publishing - Web - B2B - training
><URL: http://www.hmmci.com/ > <URL: http://crism.maden.org/consulting/ >
>PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4  5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8
>
>iQA/AwUBO+Ea/KxS+CWv7FjaEQJAnQCdGmQAKdp4x8uQ+w5AxuCAzmqQmDcAnAiX
>Oz0jNpYDo1Gbc+torwiUCxcI
>=+fWd
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>  XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list