I've kept out of this debate, until now, primarily because I've yet to formulate a defined opinion as to where I stand. However, I would like to contribute a couple of pennyworth, at this juncture.
On 06/03/14 13:21, Ingo Schwarze wrote: [...mostly snipped...] >> The logical flow isn't groff => XSL-FO, it's XSL-FO => groff. > > And that is exactly where i respectfully disagree with Eric. As do I. > It is about neither, XML and XSLT and related technologies do not > come into the picture *at all*. I consider XML and XSLT and friends > to be among the more unpleasant examples of overengineering haunting > today's software industry. Hear, hear! I have had occasion to flirt with XML technologies, in the recent past; I have come to the conclusion that they represent a group of over-hyped, over-(ab)used fad technologies. Eric, apparently, espouses a vision of an SGML-centric world. I can respect that, even though I do not share it; thankfully, from my POV, that vision is unlikely to be realized in my lifetime -- the printed page will not die out that soon! SGML technologies certainly have their place, but while they continue to generate disgustingly laid out, barely legible, and just downright broken output, such as this example: http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/html/ from Eric's own stable, I suspect that the continued future of page oriented formats remains assured. -- Regards, Keith.
