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
http://www.biglist.com/lists/dssslist/archives/200101/msg00006.html
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.
Ciao!
Fabien
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: