Thank you to all who took part in the survey for what the Print & Page Layout CG should do next. It produced 64 usable responses, with very different responses from members compared to non-members.
There were more responses than expected, which was very good, but in absolute terms the number of responses was comparatively small so there has to be some uncertainty in any analysis of the results, but I’ll do it anyway…
For the extent to which the Print & Page Layout CG should discuss XSL-FO, the members favoured making it a secondary objective or something that just happened over making it the primary focus:
whereas non-members by a large margin favoured making XSL-FO the primary focus:
For what the CG should develop, members were essentially divided equally over developing: function libraries; tutorials on any of XSL-FO, other stylesheet languages, or non language-specific page layout principles; XSL-FO specifications; and other specifications:
whereas non-members favoured XSL-FO specifications and tutorials over the other alternatives:
For what sort of specification, if any, the CG should develop, members favoured a simpler stylesheet language or specs adding to XSL 1.1:
whereas non-members favoured developing XSL-FO 2.0 or a simpler stylesheet language over other alternatives:
Before working out what to put in the survey, the Print & Page Layout CG took a long, hard look at the state of XSL-FO and other technologies and at its own capabilities. That, I think, lead us to be more pluralist and less adamant that those who did the survey without the discussion. The CG welcomes new members at any time, so the comparatively many people outside the CG who want development of XSL-FO 2.0 or of a simpler stylesheet language are welcome to join the CG to work on them (as possibly one of many outputs from the CG) or to organise their own group as they see fit.