RE: [docstandards-interop-discuss] Clarifications / Scope of the intended work?

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Ok - I've got it now - you are looking to create leap-frog technology - not better ways of processing the current generation of technology that's fielded.

 

The iText toolset is now - two years from now - once all the vendor tools support better XML technical content integration - it becomes the legacy.  Eventually people stop printing things on paper that they don't need to.... ; -)

 

DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [docstandards-interop-discuss] Clarifications / Scope of
the intended work?
From: "Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, April 10, 2007 2:28 pm
To: docstandards-interop-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org

On 10/04/07, David RR Webber (XML) <david@drrw.info> wrote:

> What I'm saying is use the model - not the specific rendering.

> So the real abstraction is the in-memory page object model that
iText is
> using when it runs - just as the DOM is for XML inside a browser....


Which page please?
Your letter page? My A4 page?
My colleagues braille page?
The 'non page' used by a reader who listens to a document on tts?

A presentation based standard is weak before it gets any further.
And highly temporal.

I had a quick look at iText, and then thought of the big bucks we're
paying
to get publishers files from PDF images into XML.

I don't like it David.

regards

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
docstandards-interop-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail:
docstandards-interop-discuss-help@lists.oasis-open.org