Elliotte Rusty Harold writes:
 > that end, I've been putting the various XSL-FO engines on the market
 > through their paces.
interesting, thanks for that
 > PassiveTeX
 > quirky instance where the first bullet point in a list was not indented
 > quite right, but this didn't seem to occur in other bulleted lists.

its an interaction with running heads, I think

 > The downside to PassiveTeX is that it depends on a "decent modern TeX
 > setup"; and TeX is invariably a nightmare.

heresy! TeX is a very very simple program to set up. far far easier
than anything involving Python, Perl and Java (in descending order of
horror). and it never segfaults

 > consider myself lucky to have been able to get PassiveTeX running; and
 > it still fails one time out of every two. This is probably due to TeX's
 > unusual multipass architecture.
unusual? "simplistic", perhaps.

 > You sometimes have to run TeX a second
 > time to get the links and cross-references right. In my case, the first
 > pass succeeds but the second pass invariably fails. Thus I never get
 > proper cross-references to page numbers in the table of contents and
 > elsewhere.

I'd much appreciate a test file showing the problem, please. I do not
have this problem (having just finished a conference proceeedings
using FO and PassiveTeX, I am prety confident)

(antenna house)
 > The downside to this otherwise excellent engine is that it's Windows
 > only and based on Windows graphics primitives rather than PostScript or
 > PDF. It displays on the screen very nicely, and prints nicely too.
 > However, it does not produce a PDF document that I can send to my editor
 > or a typesetter.
Cant you print PS to file and Distill it?

 > finished product. Ņone of them can replace TeX or QuarkXPress. You might
 > be able to publish a simple book with these, but you'd have to design
 > your book and style sheet so that you avoided the bugs and unimplemented
 > features of the processor.
how true...


Reply via email to