>  2. Would the vendors be interested in contributing and
>  implementing community-developed extensions?

I am speaking for myself. A single brilliant personality is almost
always better than a committee. A committee is almost always better
than a community. I am afraid of implementing and supporting 
community-developed extensions because it is way to turn XSL FO 
implementors and users' life into nightmare.

A better approach would be to help the working group survive and continue
its activity (that is, on XSL 2.0 or whatever). The sad fate of html and
its many vendor and community-developed extensions is a good (though very discouraging)
proof of my words.

>  Of course it would be supremely cool if a single
>  non-trivial FO instance could be used interchangably
>  with all or most of the available FO implementations.

This is a project I would be happy to participate in. And, speaking for RenderX,
as one of implementors of XSL FO,  I am saying the same: we have published an extensive
set of tests; we are committed to continue developing and making widely available 
validation tools (such as included into the current version, including the trial one, folint
.xsl
stylesheet for XSL FO validation) and testing frameworks. 

We are ready to support in all feasible ways a community effort to encourage all implementat
ors
to come closer in their interpretations of the recommendation.

David Tolpin
CTO 
RenderX
http://www.renderx.com/



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list