Peter Linnell wrote > > > > Are there architectural reasons for Scribus to disregard FO? > > (I notice that Passepartout also uses its own yet-another xml > > vocabulary, and its own renderer.) > > Yes. Very much so.
<skipped/> Peter, what about FO->Scribus? I'm highly interested in it, because we use docbook->passivetex for our documentation at the moment. Creating XSL-FO is not a problem -- it is a common task for xsltproc. So FO2Scribus would be quiet enough. If anyone implements any tool to achieve this goal, I can provide as much testing as needed. -- Alexandre Prokoudine | "When you set yourself on fire and aim ALT Linux Documentation Team | for the sky, you hope to leave behind E-mail: avp at altlinux.ru | some sparks of heat and light" JabberID: avp at altlinux.org | Neil Peart -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20031119/8ecbeccc/attachment.pgp
