Magnus G?fvert wrote: > Hussein Shafie wrote: >> Magnus G?fvert wrote: >> >>> My reason for asking is that we currently have a docbook toolchain based >>> on xslt + fop + JEuclid which produces good screen and print pdf output. >>> I got comments that the XXE pdf output does not look as good on screen, >>> although print is fine (but different). >>> >> >> You are the first customer to tell us this. For us, this is an important >> feedback. (What's the point of authoring documents in DocBook or DITA, >> if one ends up with ugly deliverables?) We would be glad if you could >> elaborate on this. >> >> > > We are actually originally moving from a LaTeX toolchain, to oour own > docbook 5, and now xxe. So, the reference for our user is our old LaTeX > output. As I mentioned, I think the output from XXE is fine, and after > your help to improve the png:s in the html output I am fully satisfied. > The comments on the pdf screen output are really minor, but I elaborate > on them below. > > Acroread 100% view. Left: Our DB5 toolchain (fop+JEuclid) with default > fonts; Right: XXE toolchain. The main disturbing thing is the fractioned > square-root expressions. Apparently different font are being used, and I > have made no attempt yet to customize this in XXE. > > > > I would not ask anyone to spend time on improving this, since the result > is fully satisfactory. >
Thank you for this information. The only explanations I see are: * May be the XXE toolchain uses versions of FOP and JEuclid different from yours. The XXE v4.5.1 toolchain uses stock JEuclid 3.1.8 and FOP 0.95 where the source resolution is forced to 120dpi (like RenderX XEP). By default, it's 72dpi which leads to huge screenshots. * May be you have specified a specific target resolution (a parameter that I don't really understand) for FOP. * May be it's caused by your particular choice of fonts. Just in case, I've forwarded your email to Max Berger the author of JEuclid.
