[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: DOCBOOK-APPS: Re: FO stylesheets compatibility with PassiveTex and Fop
>>>>> "NW" == Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes: NW> / Alex Lancaster <alexl@users.sourceforge.net> was heard to say: | NW> | May I make a humble suggestion to the Open DocBook Repository NW> folks? | For future releases it would be *really nice* if in the NW> RELEASE-NOTES, | you could include the current compatibility NW> status of the XSL-FO with | respect to both PassiveTeX and NW> Apache's FOP. NW> No argument, it would be really nice. I've been trying to get a NW> descent test harness up and running for a while, but it rarely NW> reaches the top of my todo list. And really "doing it right" would NW> require keeping several versions of PassiveTeX and FOP around, NW> including the most recent CVS versions. NW> All quite managable in theory. Understood, it's a big ask to do it properly, but even a quick sanity check with the most recent Fop and PassiveTeX would be good. NW> | Another suggestion: it is unfortunate that the stylesheets are NW> held | hostage by the current incomplete implementations of the NW> FO->PDF | processors, it effectively means that the FO sheets NW> can't really be | fully tested without the complete XML->FO-PDF NW> stage. Would it be too | hard to add a 'compatibility' mode to NW> the stylesheets for PassiveTeX | acceptable XSL-FO (like NW> fo-patch-for-fop.xsl)? NW> I'm quite willing, within reason, to stick to features that are NW> widely implemented, or use the {processor}-extensions hook to NW> tweak things. Usually when something breaks, especially at the FO NW> processor level, it's because I don't know I broke it. [...] NW> | [Incidentally if either FOP or PassiveTeX break, how do you NW> (i.e. Bob, | Norm etc.) actually test the XSL-FO are 'Doing the NW> Right/Expected | Thing' in terms of the final printed output? Do NW> you rely on other | tools, or simply conformance with the written NW> XSL-FO spec?] NW> Honestly, I rely mostly on xep. Bad norm, no biscuit. Ah! XEP! I thought so. That's part of RenderX right? I figured you must be using something other than Fop and PassiveTeX, since both Fop and PassiveTeX are lagging in their implementations of the XSL-FO spec somewhat. I know that RenderX now have a free version for academic or non-profit, which could take advantage of, but's that not the same as open source! ;-) Even if PassiveTeX and Fop lag, at least they're open source, and I'd take them anytime over the proprietary equivalents. Alex
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC