Subject: Re: [xsl] PDF to XSL-FO From: Ian Tindale <iandeli@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2002 15:45:35 +0000 |
On Friday 22 November 2002 3:30 pm, W. Eliot Kimber wrote: > Would almost certainly be easier to start from scratch--defining FO > output is just not that hard. > It could conceivably be done in a hacky sense, but the result wouldn't be what the OP wanted - I consider it somewhat akin to converting mono back into stereo - the information (the semantics of the problem space prior to page description) have been lost, never to be found again. It would be extremely difficult to 'know' what belonged to what, and much of it would have to be discarded because there's no apparent place for it to fit. It'd probably take the form of an immensely unweildy table. -- Ian Tindale XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] PDF to XSL-FO, W. Eliot Kimber | Thread | RE: [xsl] PDF to XSL-FO, Mark Seaborne |
RE: [xsl] The beginning of xslt?, Andy Joslin | Date | Re: [xsl] PDF to XSL-FO, Geoff Hankerson |
Month |