Alternatives to the W3C

Sebastian Rahtz sebastian.rahtz at
Mon Jan 17 21:18:19 GMT 2000

Tim Bray writes:
 > At 11:23 AM 1/17/00 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
 > >> foul! FO  spec is unfinished.
 > >
 > >Actually, perhaps that means it's right on the mark.  It's
 > >better to have code (such as FOP? ;-) implementing drafts,
 > >and turning up bugs therein, than to wait till any sort of
 > >"Candidate REC" stage to start such work.

I would not pursue XSL-FO too far as an example, actually. I do not
think anyone would characterize the relationship between the WG and
the developers as very healthy. XSLT is probably an excellent example, 
where the rapid implementations helped drive drafts, so far as one can 
see. Moral: a) have James Clark on a WG; b) produce something people

 > And I'm happy to report that there is an implementation in place,
 > and being madly extended as we write, in the Apache project (see
 >   Any others? -Tim

At least 3, yes. RenderX has probably got the farthest, in their
idiosyncratic way; Arbortext has announced it (did it ever ship? was
due this month); and my PassiveTeX exists for those who already have a 
TeX setup (and its the only one which implements math).

I shall read the chapter on XSL FO with interest, when the history of
the W3C is chosen. The impression that a good idea is being destroyed
by internal interference sometimes peeps through. I expect I am wrong
though, and I aint a member[1] so I can't see the mailing lists....


[1] what, an ancient university like Oxford give $5000 to someone

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as: or CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
Please note: New list subscriptions now closed in preparation for transfer to OASIS.

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list