On 5/23/2012 9:26 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:42 AM, Warren Young <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 5/21/2012 6:49 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
do you have any specific features you're interested in?
I only use XSL-FO via DocBook and the standard stylesheets, so I'm
at two removes from XSL-FO itself. I've noticed that RenderX XEP
output usually looks nicer than FOP output. One would have to chase
the reasons for that through two layers of indirection to get to the
level of actionable suggestion you're asking for.
perhaps you can look more closely at the differences that lead you to
this impression, and give us some concrete input on what you find
Here's a pretty good example of what I mean:
http://etr-usa.com/fop/titles-admin-20120523-1511.fo
http://etr-usa.com/fop/titles-admin-20120523-1511-fop.pdf
http://etr-usa.com/fop/titles-admin-20120523-1511-xep.pdf
The .fo file comes from a very simple .dbx file, basically just an
<informaltable> inside an <article>. The .xsl customization layer I use
is also very basic, doing only things like defining margins.
The biggest problem in the FOP PDF output is that the headers and
footers are smashed to the left instead of taking the full page width.
I suppose it's possible XEP is the one doing something wrong, but given
how much better it looks when they do that, I have to believe it's FOP
at fault here instead.
You can also see differences in kerning. The "Animal holiday" row on
the first page shows how a bit of loose kerning can turn into a blight.
There are several more examples of this on the second page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
