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 |