Eric Niebler wrote: > John, I think you're blazing a trail here. Nobody else is using the > fop-0.9x stuff, or the docbook-xsl snapshots, AFAIK. When I saw how > broken the output was, I gave up on it. Is there some reason you're > using the unstable stuff, instead of the older, more stable > fop/docbook-xsl combination recommended by the BoostBook docs?
Actually I've been experimenting with both: * I'm not seeing table titles from either, though I'll double check that this isn't related to the bleeding-edge stylesheets (OK done it makes no odds which stylesheets I use). * The FOP-0.9 produces a nice TOC, where as the FOP-0.25 doesn't. * The FOP-0.9 has a lot of broken internal hyperlinks, where as 0.25 is OK. * The images produced from .png's are much much better in FOP-0.9 than in 0.25 - unless someones knows how I can persuade 0.25 to interpret the images at other than 72dpi. * The PDF file sizes from 0.9 are way larger than 0.25 - 10Mb compared to 600K !!! I believe this is due to lack of image compression in 0.9. This one is currently the killer for me. John. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Boost-docs mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
