{"id":42,"date":"2014-01-14T12:42:17","date_gmt":"2014-01-14T12:42:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/community\/ppl\/?p=42"},"modified":"2014-01-14T12:42:17","modified_gmt":"2014-01-14T12:42:17","slug":"discussing-what-to-do-next-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.w3.org\/community\/ppl\/2014\/01\/14\/discussing-what-to-do-next-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Discussing what to do next"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The initial proposal to revise our group description [<a href=\"http:\/\/lists.w3.org\/Archives\/Public\/public-ppl\/2013Dec\/0002.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\">1<\/a>] generated quite a bit of discussion [<a href=\"http:\/\/lists.w3.org\/Archives\/Public\/public-ppl\/2013Dec\/thread.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\">2<\/a>] that is still going on in related threads [<a href=\"http:\/\/lists.w3.org\/Archives\/Public\/public-ppl\/2014Jan\/thread.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\">3<\/a>].<\/p>\n<p>Along the way, we&#8217;ve had discussion of:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Layout\/styling technologies that people have used [<a href=\"http:\/\/lists.w3.org\/Archives\/Public\/public-ppl\/2013Dec\/0063.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\">4<\/a>]<\/li>\n<li>Readability or otherwise of EPUB standards [5]<\/li>\n<li>S100D IETP [20]<\/li>\n<li>Advantages of learning German [21]<\/li>\n<li>Silos versus outreach [22]<\/li>\n<li>Crystal goblets and window types [6]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>And threads that were started but not taken up included:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Listing people\/companies with software that matches our definition [7]<\/li>\n<li>Making a common glossary [8]<\/li>\n<li>Whether &#8220;0&#8221; valid for all XSL-FO lengths [9]<\/li>\n<li>Commenting on other people&#8217;s specs [10]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The first two suggestions for revising the group description were for keeping the focus on XSL-FO [11] and dropping the XSL-FO mentions [12], respectively.<\/p>\n<p>We also heard about:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Needs of developers and that &#8220;Our major end user community here is not professional publishing experts.&#8221; [13]<\/li>\n<li>&#8220;any additional participation in the PPL group will be representative of the professional publishing expert community.&#8221; [14]<\/li>\n<li>&#8220;I know quite a few people in the Digital Publishing Interest Group who would be happy to join the conversation over here&#8221; [15]<\/li>\n<li>&#8220;I manually modified the FO file to get the results they wanted. That was a rather painful process &#8211; and it would have been impossible, if they had to do it by themselves, as none of them seems to be willing to invest time in learning XSL-FO.&#8221; [16]<\/li>\n<li>&#8220;I want &#8216;decent&#8217; (easy to read) print. I generally use docbook stylesheets or tweak my own generic. Key point. No layout requirements which might be seen as verging on paranoia and harking back to manual typesetting.&#8221; [17]<\/li>\n<li>&#8220;Programmatic approaches to creating PDF and Postscript are nothing new to me, nor to many programmers tasked with publishing.&#8221; [18]<\/li>\n<li>&#8220;While it might not be hard to create a PDF file, creating a PDF file that is suitable for today&#8217;s publishing needs is.&#8221; [19]<\/li>\n<li>&#8220;The difficulty I have with saying that we will produce XSL-FO 2.0 or even a 1.2 is that we have no reasonable expectation that it will be implemented.&#8221; [24]<\/li>\n<li>&#8220;it&#8217;s closer to the whole shooting match that needs a review, putting it perhaps too strongly, it simply doesn&#8217;t match with what CSS offers, a dumb syntax that (nearly) does what FO does?&#8221; [25]<\/li>\n<li>&#8220;CSS syntax is being cleaned up, but I think some of the simplicity is deceptive, because it doesn&#8217;t do as much as FO.&#8221; [26]<\/li>\n<li>&#8220;CSS has shown a longevity and a capability to grow that I certainly didn&#8217;t expect back in 1994-1998, even though I designed it to be extensible. On the other hand, the increased size already means that it isn&#8217;t easy for people to learn CSS anymore and we should ask ourselves if it isn&#8217;t better to leave CSS alone and create a new style sheet standard that, from the start, is meant to be good enough for complex publications.&#8221; [27]<\/li>\n<li>&#8220;XSL-FO is not suffering low rates of adoption because it&#8217;s more difficult to use than other technologies, it&#8217;s suffering because it hasn&#8217;t been sold that well.&#8221; [28]<\/li>\n<li>&#8220;Dave Cramer&#8217;s &#8216;Requirements for Latin Text Layout and Pagination&#8217; is to cover &#8216;requirements for pagination and layout of books in latin languages&#8217;, and the XSL-FO spec and various CSS modules are about how to instantiate pagination and layout, but there is a middle ground for material about how to do a good job at pagination and layout.&#8221; [28]<\/li>\n<li>&#8220;So I do think there&#8217;s a lot of mileage to be had in FO tutorials and examples &#8211; when Tony mentioned SWIG I thought at first he was referring to the success of the semantic web interest group in doing that sort of outreach :)&#8221; [29]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>So if you&#8217;re still reading this (even if you&#8217;ve skipped past the quotes to get to here), you&#8217;ll know that we&#8217;ve had good, robust discussion.\u00a0 We&#8217;ve also had a few instances of people looking at the same information and coming to opposite conclusions, but isn&#8217;t life ever thus?<\/p>\n<p>The next step is a survey based on the ideas put forward so we can quantify and prioritise what people both inside and outside the CG see us as doing.<\/p>\n<p>See <a title=\"Summary: Revise group description?\" href=\"http:\/\/lists.w3.org\/Archives\/Public\/public-ppl\/2014Jan\/0067.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\">http:\/\/lists.w3.org\/Archives\/Public\/public-ppl\/2014Jan\/0067.html<\/a> for the rest of the references.\u00a0 There seems to be a size limit on posts, and putting in all the references results in a &#8216;Bad Request&#8217; error when saving this post.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The initial proposal to revise our group description [1] generated quite a bit of discussion [2] that is still going on in related threads [3]. Along the way, we&#8217;ve had discussion of: Layout\/styling technologies that people have used [4] Readability &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.w3.org\/community\/ppl\/2014\/01\/14\/discussing-what-to-do-next-2\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1252,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s2mail":"yes","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.w3.org\/community\/ppl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.w3.org\/community\/ppl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.w3.org\/community\/ppl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.w3.org\/community\/ppl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1252"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.w3.org\/community\/ppl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=42"}],"version-history":[{"count":23,"href":"https:\/\/www.w3.org\/community\/ppl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":85,"href":"https:\/\/www.w3.org\/community\/ppl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42\/revisions\/85"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.w3.org\/community\/ppl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.w3.org\/community\/ppl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.w3.org\/community\/ppl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}