On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 20:27, Alexander Schatten wrote: > Peter Flynn wrote: > > >This has come up several times before. I agree completely: many people > >want to use LaTeX to create PDF because it does a vastly > >better job than any of the FOP systems. > > > > > nevertheless it is imho the completly wrong attempt. because FOP is not > ready for primetime, you suggest to put energy to integrate a legacy > system, that does not fit into the XML publishing process??
What's the difference between letting fop rendering a pdf or tex rendering a pdf? And why would it not fit within an xml publishing process? The only thing you'd need to do is define an xml syntax for tex, there used to be a project an ibm's alphaworks that did just that. The serializer can then transparently transform that xml syntax to native tex syntax, and run tex on it. Alternatively, if I remember well, context (a tex macro package) supports xml directly as input format. The enegery required to do all this is a lot less (and of a different kind) than that required to enhance fop. [...] > > > I really cannot see the point. the only thing I would need is a > generator that 1:1 tries to move LaTeX into XML, that's what *you* would need, not what the guy asked for. He wanted to do the inverse. [...] > > > > > >>The next one will ask, why Cocoon cannot create WML from powerpoint or > >>SVG from Postscript. And here you are again comparing with the inverse process: it would make sense to convert svg to postscript. -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
