Subject: Re: xml to pdf with fop From: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 05:58:48 +0000 (GMT) |
David Tolpin writes: > 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 true. I need to make a formal list. I downloaded most of the renderx stuff today, and am depressed to see how far they have got! I'll use the test file as a meter for PassiveTeX, and put up the PassiveTeX version so that you can compare. > 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). which are declared with a namespace correctly, surely? sebastian XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: xml to pdf with fop, David Tolpin | Thread | Re: xml to pdf with fop, David Tolpin |
Re: Extension elements and namespac, James Clark | Date | Re: XT: I/O of iso-8859-1 character, Miloslav Nic |
Month |