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 Ni�oles Debian Maintainer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org GPG KeyID: C15D FE9E BB35 F596 127F BF7D 8F1F DFC9 BCE0 9436
