|
Subject: Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript From: Zack Brown <zbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:46:16 -0800 |
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:30:15AM -0500, Joseph Kesselman wrote:
> Just a quick observation: If you really prefer to think in terms of
> generating TeX rather than XSL-FO, IBM published a technology
> demonstration quite some time ago which consisted of a XML equivalent
> syntax for LaTeX and a postprocessor that would convert this into standard
> LaTeX markup. It might still be available from the alphaWorks website.
Please ignore my last reply to this - I wasn't aware that TeXML was a
target and not a source. Sorry about that.
Be well,
Zack
>
> ______________________________________
> Joe Kesselman, IBM Next-Generation Web Technologies:
> XML, XSL and more. "may'ron DaroQbe'chugh vaj bIrIQbej"
> ("Put down the squeezebox and nobody gets hurt.")
>
>
> XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
>
--
Zack Brown
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
| Current Thread |
|---|
|
| <- Previous | Index | Next -> |
|---|---|---|
| Re: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript, Wendell Piez | Thread | [xsl] open and closed tag merged in, David Smith |
| Re: [xsl] Stylesheet to remove comm, Scott Moore | Date | RE: [xsl] XSL-FO versus PostScript, bryan |
| Month |