Subject: Re: xml to pdf with fop From: David Tolpin <dvd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 02:29:15 +0500 (AMD) |
Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > David Tolpin writes: > > > > Anyway, FOP is the only opportunity now. Let's hope there will > > > no its not, actually. http://users.ox.ac.uk/~rahtz/passivetex > generates PDF from XSL FO. its more fully-featured than FOP, albeit > less elegant. > Yes, you are right. PassiveTeX is yet another opportunity, although installing the right version of TeX is a bit prohibiting for a casual user. Besides that, I didn't find at the site mentioned a definitive list of what is supported and what is not by the formatter. If it were possible to check the program against the tests published at http://www.renderx.com/Demo/index.html it would help a lot to estimate it's full-featuredness. Unfortunately, the only xsl fo available as an example of PassiveTeX's functionality is not an XSL FO, since it contains 'custom' elements (fotex:bookmark). David Tolpin ------------------------------------- Register now at http://hragir.aua.am/ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: xml to pdf with fop, Sebastian Rahtz | Thread | Re: xml to pdf with fop, Sebastian Rahtz |
Extension elements and namespace pr, Denys Duchier | Date | Re: xml to pdf with fop, Sebastian Rahtz |
Month |