11:06 a.m.
What's all this about changing xmlto to use Saxon instead of xsltproc?
How will that fix PDF output?
Tim.
*/
12:06 p.m.
Uttered Tim Waugh <twaugh(a)redhat.com>, spake thus:
What's all this about changing xmlto to use Saxon instead of
xsltproc?
How will that fix PDF output?
Won't fix it in itself, but were we to use FOP, which itself uses
saxon, that would be one less dependancy to keep current.
Cheers
1:36 p.m.
On Thu, 2005-06-16 at 17:06 +0100, Tim Waugh wrote:
What's all this about changing xmlto to use Saxon instead of
xsltproc?
How will that fix PDF output?
The DocBook developers mainly use a Java toolchain of Saxon and FOP,
aiui.
By following the same or closely related toolchain, we benefit in many
ways.
It makes sense to keep our work within the bounds of the formal DocBook
and XML specifications, for all the usual reasons.
If the problem is that Saxon and FOP are not in Fedora Extras, we will
get them packaged and maintained.
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41
Red Hat SELinux Guide
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/
5:05 p.m.
Uttered Tim Waugh <twaugh(a)redhat.com>, spake thus:
Maybe we should be looking at xmlroff, which doesn't have a
dependency
on *yet another* XML parser
Xmlroff just doesn't work at all yet. Try converting the IG, for instance.
At least these saxon/fop partially function.
Cheers
3:41 a.m.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 05:05:43PM -0500, Tommy Reynolds wrote:
Uttered Tim Waugh <twaugh(a)redhat.com>, spake thus:
> Maybe we should be looking at xmlroff, which doesn't have a dependency
> on *yet another* XML parser
Xmlroff just doesn't work at all yet. Try converting the IG, for instance.
At least these saxon/fop partially function.
It's unfair to say it doesn't work at all, but it certainly isn't
something that will work for everything right now, that's true.
But I do really question the benefit of switching xmlto to using
Saxon. We should be concentrating effort on the XSL-FO -> PDF step,
not the XML -> XSL-FO step which already works perfectly well.
Tim.
*/
10:52 a.m.
On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 09:41 +0100, Tim Waugh wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 05:05:43PM -0500, Tommy Reynolds wrote:
But I do really question the benefit of switching xmlto to using
Saxon. We should be concentrating effort on the XSL-FO -> PDF step,
not the XML -> XSL-FO step which already works perfectly well.
Agreed in principle. However, see previous comments about keeping in
step with the leaders of the DocBook community. For that reason alone,
we behoove ourselves to consider Saxon. It's like using Emacs for
DocBook -- it is not required, it is not essential, but it sure can make
writing a -ton- easier.
- Karsten
--
Karsten Wade, RHCE * Sr. Tech Writer * http://people.redhat.com/kwade/
gpg fingerprint: 2680 DBFD D968 3141 0115 5F1B D992 0E06 AD0E 0C41
Red Hat SELinux Guide
http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-4-Manual/selinux-guide/
4:38 a.m.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 05:05:43PM -0500, Tommy Reynolds wrote:
Uttered Tim Waugh <twaugh(a)redhat.com>, spake thus:
> Maybe we should be looking at xmlroff, which doesn't have a dependency
> on *yet another* XML parser
Xmlroff just doesn't work at all yet. Try converting the IG, for instance.
FWIW, I took a look at this. There is a bug concerning bare
indexterms at the beginning of para blocks, and working around that I
ended up with some PDF output.
The fo:external-graphic support is being re-written currently, and so
there are no images. Also, there is incorrect significant white-space
in a lot of places because of this sort of style:
<para> <!-- this white space is significant and *will* be rendered! -->
Blah blah blah...
There are a few rendering glitches too, of course, but I am confident
things would improve fairly rapidly if the Fedora Project would lend
xmlroff some development support. I think it's at the point now where
it is possible to pick an unimplemented property that you care about
and implement it. The upstream maintainer is helpful when you have
questions about the code.
I've put the PDF I got here:
http://cyberelk.net/tim/data/tmp/fedora-install-guide-en.pdf
..and now I'll go and file the bug that indexterms trigger.
Tim.
*/
9:56 a.m.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 10:38:31AM +0100, Tim Waugh wrote:
I've put the PDF I got here:
http://cyberelk.net/tim/data/tmp/fedora-install-guide-en.pdf
Hmm, seems like no-one even looked at this.
Guess we can't be all *that* interested in getting PDF output
working..
Tim.
*/
10:09 a.m.
Uttered Tim Waugh <twaugh(a)redhat.com>, spake thus:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 10:38:31AM +0100, Tim Waugh wrote:
> I've put the PDF I got here:
> http://cyberelk.net/tim/data/tmp/fedora-install-guide-en.pdf
Hmm, seems like no-one even looked at this.
Sorry, I've been attending some classes, meetings, travelling and the
like. I lost my pencil and the dog ate my homework. (I just missed
it, sorry)
Overall this looks promising. There appear to be some font metric
problems and the no-pictures issue mentioned earlier.
I apologize if I sounded overly harsh about xmlroff but I still
believe that it isn't ready for prime time yet, just like the FOP
tool isn't.
Please continue to dog this tool so we can look at it again when
these issues are resolved. I'm not married to FOP, it's just the
closest thing to a working tool I've seen that isn't a commercial
project.
Cheers!
6875
days inactive
6888
days old
9 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Karsten Wade -
Tim Waugh -
Tommy Reynolds