[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Brokenness of DocBook XSL toolchain

On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 02:46:07PM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> | Many of these problems do not appear with small samples, and it is thus
> | difficult to track them down.
> Too true.

Working directly on the db side, when the problem is in the processing
of the FO->PDF is problematic too.  Currently, I have some small FO file
(less than 50 lines) that are valid but can't be parse on xmltex/i386
ONLY, which give me some trouble (see bug #181444).  I try to do it with
other bug too.

xmltex is "lazy" maintain upstream (see #167275 bug which is forward and
confirm upstream)... I think the upstream maintainer doesn't have much
time.  passivetex upstream author are much more responsive usually...
He just to quite when uploading new versions ;).

However, regarding quality, I still prefer jade output, especially
for tables.  I were even looking for a dsssl stylesheet for XSL-FO,
so to make jade a good FO processor, but
convince me to abandon the idea.

Hope to have a good xsl-fo processor.  Something that give me the
quality of TeX (unlike FOP) and as reliable as xsltproc.  Better support
for catalogs are also welcome.

Debian XML Dreamer ;)
Fabien Niñoles                              Debian Maintainer
fabien@debian.org                       http://www.debian.org
GPG KeyID: C15D FE9E BB35 F596 127F  BF7D 8F1F DFC9 BCE0 9436

Reply to: