Re: [xsl] alternative to FO?

Subject: Re: [xsl] alternative to FO?
From: Bruce D'Arcus <bdarcus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 16:49:01 -0500
On Nov 25, 2004, at 4:25 PM, Jirka Kosek wrote:

It might be option for some users who don't want care about FO or TeX and have not very demanding rendering requirements.

"Not very demanding rendering requirements" in what sense?


It's an innocent question; I don't know FO. I do know that Hans is a demanding typographer, though, and ConTeXt is capable of quite impressive output.

Bruce

Current Thread