Greetings! I wanted to start a separate thread on the potential proposal to re-work/extend our use of XSL-FO for the next version of ODF. I think Rob has a good point that too rigid a standard can have adoption "issues" but on the other hand, a standard can be so loose that anything can be claimed to be an example of use of the standard. There needs to be a "sweet spot" that offers implementers, users and other members of the community various advantages. I suggested XSL-FO, in part so we can come closer to that standard as written but also for a *vocabulary* by which we could create more requirements for formatting. Mostly because the formatting of a document is seen by users as the test of "interoperability" and not unreasonably so. I use the term *vocabulary* because I don't mean for ODF to require the use of XSL-FO or CSS (which is used by XSL-FO by reference) or some other formatting technology. What I do mean is to specify the required formatting in a common language that is understood and implemented by a substantial community so that ODF applications can *duplicate* that formatting by whatever means they choose. For example, ODF formatting might become so popular that someone will write a LaTeX stylesheet that produces ODF formatted text. That looks just like Open Office, Symphony, Word, LibreOffice, KOffice, etc. had produced it. The goal is to specify the *formatting* and not the *technology* for getting there in the ODF standard. True, using XSL-FO or CSS can be said to favor at least one way of getting there but I think it is a good idea to pick a vocabulary that is well known and that *we don't have to write.* That last consideration being uppermost in my mind. ;-) My suggestion would be that we start with what formatting is supported now by vendors and where do they differ? Where would additional specifics in ODF make a difference in what users see and improve "interoperability" in that respect. The more radical side of me wants to suggest that we look at HTML5 and add attributes to ODF elements to incorporate HTML 5 semantics and styles.* There is a growing amount of vendor interest/support in that area. And given that most users view the world through browsers, that might be a familiar look. Just a suggestion. I do think we need greater specifics on formatting but have no real commitment to how we do that, so long as we do it well. Hope everyone is at the start of a great week! Patrick * I realize that following HTML 5 puts really sophisticated floating sidenote boxes out of reach but high-end typesetting really isn't the target market for ODF. Sigh, I really like high-end typesetting for XML but that is always going to be a niche market. I think releasing a largely HTML5 based semantic markup in two years would hit the format market at just about the right time. -- Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps) Another Word For It (blog):
http://tm.durusau.net Homepage:
http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau