Re: [xsl] xsl 2.0?

[Liam R E Quin <liam@xxxxxx>]

On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 16:23 +0900, Toshihiko Makita wrote:

> 1. Did W3C determine to discontinue developing XSL-FO 2.0 for the feature?
> 2. What is the main cause that XSL-FO 2.0 
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-xslfo20-20120117/) has been failed?

We have closed the Working Group because not enough people were taking
part.

We do know that users were requesting new features. I was told
afterwards that Antenna House has implemented some of the 2.0 draft
features - their customers really wanted them. But none of the
commercial XSL-FO implementers were coming to meetings. I understand in
the case of Antenna House that there were/are language difficulties, of
course.

A W3C specification must have multiple implementations to become a
Recommendation, and it wasn't clear that would ever happen for XSL-FO
2.0.

> 3. I beleive that XSL-FO is most suitable techinology for formatting XML 
> documents. Does CSS techinology become the complete alternative of the 
> XSL-FO?

No, as Dave Pawson said, not yet.

But CSS is changing very fast.

Several major book publishers are using CSS-like solutions - including
Antenna House's, which adds some 200 custom properties that are not
really part of CSS, and including YesLogic's PrinceXML formatter which
is more limited in some ways but handles XML, not just XHTML, and
supports OpenType.

There's a lot of pressure on CSS and on browser vendors from ebook
publishers (and ebook user communities), so the CSS Working Group
participants are starting to take what they call paged media much more
seriously.

There's also increased activity within the Member-only part of W3C,
especially in the new digital publishing activity (www.w3.org/dpub).

Liam

-- 
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml