Michael(tm) Smith wrote:
There is a alternative open-source DocBook-to-PDF/Postscript option that already produces better output than FOP in many cases. It's db2latex: http://db2latex.sourceforge.net/ It doesn't use XSL-FO at all. Instead it translates DocBook to LaTeX and then uses TeX to generate output from that. I think that approach is suboptimal; it'd be a lot better to have a good open-source XSL-FO engine.
I'm not sure why. FO is sort of a "roach hotel" language in an XML sense -- once you have FO, you're not going to transform it to any other XML markup. Besides, there are other forms of markup -- namely, *roff and *TeX -- that already do a great job of typesetting and are Free. Why not replace FO with one or the other? It's computationally a similar step and you don't have to wait for FOP or xmlroff to get up to snuff. I've asked this question before on XML fora and have not heard a satisfactory answer. -- Larry Kollar k o l l a r @ a l l t e l . n e t Unix Text Processing: "UTP Revival" http://unixtext.org/ _______________________________________________ Groff mailing list Groff@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/groff
