Hi Ron,
I agree that some education of both parties is needed. Its no longer
true that FOP is a buggy limited piece of software. That might have been
true 3-4 years ago, but it is becoming a very mature product now. That
is a clear sign that the DITA experts are out of date. We need to work
A good starting point:
http://thecontentwrangler.com/2008/04/11/choosing_an_xml_schema_docbook_or_dita/
A good discussion about how DITA-OT uses XSL and XSL-FO to create PDF
from DITA XML.
http://www.scriptorium.com/whitepapers/ditaotpdf/DITA-PDF-tweaks.pdf
I am trying to get the FOP side to
You are right , of course.
However, this very large community ( one DITA LinkedIn group has 4,600
members, the Technical Doc group has over 14,000 members) does not see
themselves as users of FOP but only as users of DITA-OT which in turn
has a dependency on FOP.
As far as I know DITA is the
I'm not familiar with DITA, but if a DITA product depends on FOP, then DITA
as a group or its sponsors should consider funding the work they would like
to see done in FOP. Simply asking the few developers in the FOP project to
support DITA priorities won't guarantee any results.
On Sun, May 25,
I think this only shows that the person is not going to the source
(i.e., the FOP user mailing list) to request help.
The example shown can be greatly improved by using
fo:leader width=100% leader-pattern=use-content./fo:leader
instead of
fo:leader leader-pattern=dots /
The FOP
You get what you pay for. If you want to invest resources to improve FOP,
you are free to do so.
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Ron Wheeler
rwhee...@artifact-software.com wrote:
The conversation below shows one of the reasons why I would like to see DITA
become part of the XMLGraphics
