Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Re: Re: XSLT vs Templating?

by perrin (Chancellor)
on Jan 28, 2002 at 22:13 UTC ( #142134=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Re: XSLT vs Templating?
in thread XSLT vs Templating?

I thought you could use XSLT to produce various output formats from WAP to PDF to TeX. Is that not correct?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Re: XSLT vs Templating?
by Matts (Deacon) on Jan 28, 2002 at 22:34 UTC
    Kinda...

    WAP, well really WML (WAP is the protocol, like HTTP), is an XML format, so that's easy (note though that the WAP forum have dropped WML in favour of XHTML for future devices).

    PDF is not possible to generate directly, because XML has no concept of certain binary characters that PDFs would need. However you can do something called XSL-FO (FO stands for formatting objects), which allows you to generate PDFs or Postscript. The way this would work in a pipelined system is you'd first transform your XML into some sort of enhanced view, then one pipeline might transform that to HTML via XSLT, then another might transform that to XSL-FO, and then on to PDF via some sort of XSL-FO engine. Note that XSLT engines are very different beasts to XSL-FO engines. AxKit can do XSL-FO PDF generation via PassiveTeX.

    TeX is a little tricky, because there are some special characters that are hard to output via XSLT, and XSLT doesn't have very good text manipulation facilities (the designers expected you to do the text manipulation before you do the transformation I guess).

    In summary, XSLT has three output modes: XML, HTML, and Text. You're free to do whatever you want to within the limitations of those output modes, and within the limitations of XSLT.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://142134]
help
Chatterbox?
[ambrus]: 1nickt: for some reason, these days they call every computer "gaming", even ones that gamers wouldn't buy. I've bought a keyboard that was labelled "gamer", despite that it has hard springs and seems to be way better for typing than for gaming;
[1nickt]: I though the gamers like that because they bash the keys so hard.
[ambrus]: and I've seen motherboards with no fast expansion ports for a video card but built-in hardware RAID advertized as "gaming".
LanX has a shaming laptop
[ambrus]: 1nickt: my impression is that the gamers like the softer springs, because fast reaction time is more important to them then feedback from keypresses to recognize typos.
[1nickt]: Ah, I see. I did read some gamer mag reviews, and yes, they lamented the fact that laptops with no discrete video card are sold as "gaming" hardware.
[1nickt]: But, they do have red keyboard backlighting! And gargoyles on the front, or words like "Maxxx" here and there. They know their demographic!
[1nickt]: True gamers don;t buy Dells, HPs, or Lenovos, I think ;-)
[ambrus]: The keyboard I bought doesn't have backlighting. I specifically had to select for that, because so many keyboards these days have lights. Why would I want lights in the keyboard? I want lights in the room, such as on the ceiling, not in the keyboard.
choroba has a small USB lamp

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others drinking their drinks and smoking their pipes about the Monastery: (11)
As of 2017-03-27 13:47 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Should Pluto Get Its Planethood Back?



    Results (320 votes). Check out past polls.