I've never been happy with the PDF output I got from asciidoc backends (I initially tried dblatex and then switched to fop). For small to medium sized documents (up to 15-20 pages), I've recently mostly switched from from fop to weasyprint
http://weasyprint.org/ weasyping takes as input the .html file that wass generated directly by asciidoc). Here's a Makefile snippet: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SHELL=/bin/bash Readme.pdf: Readme.html weasyprint -s <(echo '@page { size: letter; }') Readme.html Readme.pdf Readme.html: Readme.txt asciidoc -a data-uri -a max-width=40em Readme.txt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- IMO, the PDF results are much nicer looker and easier to read that what I got from either dblatex or fop. It's especially nice for documents that will be used as both HTML and PDF, since the formatting is pretty much the same. For some longer documents I'm still using fop, since its outout is a more compact. I had also looked into asciidoctor's direct-to-PDF as an option, but there were features used in some of my documents that weren't supported by asciidoctor (at least at that point in time). I don't recall exactly what they were... So I should probably give asciidoctor another try one of these days. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Were these parsnips at CORRECTLY MARINATED in gmail.com TACO SAUCE? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "asciidoc" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
