Em 05-04-2013 18:19, honyk escreveu:
If you need huge customizations in TeX based solutions, you need deep
knowledge both XSLT and TeX parts of the production workflow as you usually
have to customize both of them.
That is exactly true about XSL FO as well. If you need customizations,
you need to know both XSLT and XSL FO. It is just a question of which
one you know better, XSL FO or TeX. I've worked with both and I have no
problem with either, using a reference I can find out what I want to
know. But I think there are more people, who knows TeX than XSL FO.
Knowing nothing about TeX syntax I
simplified my task by concentrating on one well known syntax - XSL-FO (i.e.
standard with bright future:).
Let's hope that bright future! But the 5 years you have waited hoping
that things are getting better are not a good reason to be so optimistic.
5 yrs ago I hoped that FOP is almost mature product. Unfortunately I still
cannot say that. It's a pity. Seeing huge investments in many areas it is a
shame that FOP is still on the perifery of the interest. I promise when I
earn money I'll suport its development. It deserves it.
To be a programmer, instead of creating proposed 'workaround' for FOP issues
I'd rather fix them;-)
I'm not saying it should not be fixed but probably I'm not the best
person for that since I don't have such a deep knowledge on typesetting.
Besides, it is much more about providing an alternative choice, another
flavor of rendering printable output from DocBook. You didn't want to
learn TeX and better switched to commercial XSL FO product. In the same
way, there may be people who do not want to learn XSL FO but know TeX
and would be interested in using DocBook over a TeX-based solution.
Gabor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
