Dirar Bougatef wrote:

Does anyone have informations about tex macro packages and their advantages over XSL (previously known as XSL-FO) ?

I have read somewhere that tex is a good implementation of the XSL standard !

I think this is in regard that tex thinks in matter of boxes (Which is the equivalent of XSL blocks). I this case, is the difference between the two in the fact that at the end tex and macros are only algorithms for typesetting blocks automatically ?

xsl is mostly a specification, and there are program soutthere that implement parts of is. The page model that xsl uses is not that advanced. Also, because you more or less make up the page, you also sort of disable all kind of clever things that batch processors like tex + macropackages may do. This means that xsl (fo) is suited for a certain range of typesetting tasks. From my experience your expectations should not be that high with regards to complex layouts. I'm on and off implementing an fo engine (foxet) and run into fuzziness with regards to the specs (a bad omen is that that there i could not find a good manual and the ones i have are made up rather poorly, which indicated that we're not so much dealing with high end typesetting, but with regular batchprocessing of not too complex documents). Recently i've been playing with css (from which xsl inherits much, which does not add to a clear design imo) and i'm surprised that browsers are so different that one ends up hacking around as much as one would using tex -) In many ways xsl is driven by the web, and not by real typesetting (is my guess). paper and screen are different things. What you use depends on what you need it for. For a long time, the midset of designers has been shaped by what page maker, quark, etc can and cannot do (therefore all those ragged right docs, where the limitations have become the standard). I fear that in the next couple of years the limited possibilities of for instance xsl will bring down the standards (if it can't be done, one will just lower the demands), which also fits in the short lifecycle of most documents. So, what to use when: - here i find that using tex directly (using the context xml parser) in most cases is rather efficient; the problem is always in getting (frequently inconsistent) designs done. In that respect my motto has become 'the problem does not change' - xslt is nice for preprocessing and manipulating documents and often one can get away with clean coding - some scripting is often needed as well (for instance in order to add typographical detail, which is rather easy to do with regexps in scripting languages) - xsl (fo), well for the moment i see it as a kind of 'placed xml'; when customers want us to use it, we'll do it (gives a feeling of independence), but in most cases using some direct mapping onto tex is not only easier (cheaper) but also gives a bit more control. It all depends on the design. - so: just use the best of all worlds (which is what xml is about: it's consistent -when used all right- and it can be transformed; interestingly there are quite some organizations out there that bind themselves to just one kind of xml handling app thereby contradicting the concept. In de time i want to write down something on these matters. Hans btw, there is a special mailing list for foxet; a preliminary version is in the alpha zip ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------

Dirar Bougatef wrote:

...

xsl is mostly a specification, and there are program soutthere that implement parts of is. The page model that xsl uses is not that advanced. Also, because you more or less make up the page, you also sort of disable all kind of clever things that batch processors like tex + macropackages may do. This means that xsl (fo) is suited for a certain range of typesetting tasks. From my experience your expectations should not be that high with regards to complex layouts.

Do you mean that i went too far in my interpretation of XSL blocks as TEX boxes ? What i see is that XSL as you said is quiet the same thing as CSS2 hence it will support complex layouts (At the end it is only a matter of dividing your page into big or small boxes and the ability of accessing them, isn't it ?). In this case the difference with tex is only going to be that the last handles caracter (with ligatures etc.) and word spacing (with regard to hyphenation) according to some rules where the other doesn't.

there is more: pagebreaks, floats, marginal notes, etc those are the complicating factors

I have read an article that says that the whole matter about creating XSL was printed documents with all what this implies such as headers, footers, etc (The stuff that does not concern electronic documents).

indeed, simple docs with only headers and footers -)

...

i find that using tex directly (using the context xml parser) in most cases is rather efficient; the problem is always in getting (frequently inconsistent) designs done. In that respect my motto has become 'the problem does not change'

What do you mean by this. Is it that i have to stick to only few designs and avoid changing too much .. ?

no, that depending on the layout/design, finding a solution for some problem will always be difficult; kind of: it's nice to use some 4th generation language, but it still leaves us with the 10% hard work in a 3th one; look at all those editors we see around us: it's no big deal to cut and past a basic editor from components readily available, making a real good one is still some work -)

I would like to write my documents in XML, keep THEM on a server and generate PDF, when the user clicks on the link to my document. Of course i want to use Context to typeset my document. What can i use for this ? Have you already writen a parser for standard (e.g Docbook) documents ?

some have, not me; it's a matter of mapping elements onto context thingies, the parser is already there; just peek in the x-* files Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------

Taco Hoekwater wrote:

Hans Hagen wrote:

...

I'm on and off implementing an fo engine (foxet) and run into fuzziness with regards to the specs (a bad omen is that that there i could not find a good manual and the ones i have are made up rather poorly, which indicated that we're not so much dealing with high end typesetting, but with regular batchprocessing of not too complex documents).

The longer one has to read in the XSL-FO specification, the more one resents having to do so. If you are lookiing for a road towards creating pdf documents, then ConTeXt is like an actual freeway with perhaps a few potholes and missing roadsigns, where XSL-FO is a set of directions on how to create a jungle road, written down by a civil engineer with terrible handwriting mirroring a quite chaotic mind who nonetheless insists on doing everything "the right way"(tm).

you're right! unfortunately those engineers can ride on the back of the horse with xml painted all over it, which makes it good by principle for those who pay them; an interesting aspect of this is that while xml opens many roads, the tendensy is towards taking one road; there is probably some thinking behind this that we suddenly can solve all problems for ever and do with one road. btw, as with much xml related things: much of what is around as 'standard' is actually just a reversed engineered application interface, or worse: serving as an interface to different applications which makes it fuzzy; take xsl: there are a lot of dupplicate attributes just to serve css; this is strange because the whole idea behind xslt (which is mostly ok) is that one can transform, so there is no need for those duplicates. The engineer serves to many masters. apart from the specs, fo lacks a real proper box model: (like css, there is no real way to do for instance vertical alignment comparable with tex's fill's); it somehow started from the wrong angle; and then .. how about math, chemistry, etc -) a long road ahead

Various people have been busy trying to build that road according to the specifications, and some of the toll (payfare) roads are in fact reasonably close. I'm speaking with a certain fondness in my voice really, because I am also busy implementing a (commercial) fo engine using ConTeXt.

-) comparisons between the not-taco engines show big differences (also in price) and as soon as extensions start coming into the picture, the 'acclaimed advantage of fo' disappears. Some peeople pay five digit numbers for engines where formulas has to be included as graphic. I sometimes wonder if it makes sense to cook up an alternative model on top of context -) Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 12:53:22PM +0200, Nikolai Weibull wrote:

* Hans Hagen [Oct 01, 2004 12:40]:

...

comparisons between the not-taco engines show big differences (also in price) and as soon as extensions start coming into the picture, the 'acclaimed advantage of fo' disappears. Some peeople pay five digit numbers for engines where formulas has to be included as graphic.

Heh, serious? That's incredible. I'm really beginning to doubt the "authoring in XML"-bandwagon's legitimacy. nikolai

You and most of the XML community (I once claimed to be part of that, but have lately tried to distance myself, partly for the reasons being discussed here). The original idea was that XML would be a new and better way to author *Web documents*. Somewhere along the line it morphed into a general-purpose, universal data exchange format, in which capacity it serves reasonably well (though it likely should have been designed differently, had people foreseen how it would actually be used). Meanwhile, a ragged band of diehards continued trying to develop and promote XML specifically as a web technology and/or a document technology, but I think very few people have much hope in that area any more. There was an article on O'Reilly Network's XML.com in July entitled "XML on the Web has Failed"; that may not settle the question, but such a statement would have been unthinkable 2 or 3 years ago. But to get back to the question of XSL: a couple of years ago I was looking for a way to generate print-ready documents from XML. I tried the then-latest version of FOP, which was and maybe still is the most popular open-source XSL-FO processor. I was amazed, after several years of its development by the Apache project, how many features were unimplemented, including some that I considered obvious and important for complex documents (I think, for example, there was no way to do footnotes). In hindsight, this probably shouldn't have been surprising. Print documents are complex, and few people are interested in them, relative to the Web. There probably aren't enough users or interested programmers to support more than a couple of high-quality products in this problem space. Anyway, when I found that FOP wouldn't meet my needs, I started searching for something else--and found ConTeXt. Architecturally, it may not have XSL's Neoclassical tidiness, but it has one huge advantage: it works. -- Matt Gushee When a nation follows the Way, Haven Rock Press Horses bear manure through Englewood, Colorado, USA its fields; books@havenrock.com When a nation ignores the Way, Horses bear soldiers through its streets. --Lao Tzu (Peter Merel, trans.)