Dear all,
I just wanted to bring this to everyones attention. I have been chatting to Kwade about this over on the #fedora-docs irc channel and he is aware that this is still broken. It has been since Fedora was announced.
I have testing as much as I can, and xmlto seem to be fine, it's the tex part that breaks whenever there are itemizedlist's
I am quite happily generating PDF when these are not in the xml doc.
What can I do to fix this?
Also, page headers i.e. the documents name don't span the to of the PDF properly. Is this a xslt issue?
Thanks,
Gavin.
On Tue, 2005-01-25 at 14:54 +0000, Gavin Henry wrote:
Dear all,
I just wanted to bring this to everyones attention. I have been chatting to Kwade about this over on the #fedora-docs irc channel and he is aware that this is still broken. It has been since Fedora was announced.
I have testing as much as I can, and xmlto seem to be fine, it's the tex part that breaks whenever there are itemizedlist's
I am quite happily generating PDF when these are not in the xml doc.
What can I do to fix this?
I'm poking Tim for some input.
Do you have some example XML?
Also, page headers i.e. the documents name don't span the to of the PDF properly. Is this a xslt issue?
Dunno, haven't had the time to peel back the layers, but I want to Real Soon Now. This doesn't help you now, though.
I don't fully understand the issues. IIRC, we were discussing using fop instead of the tex backend for pdf generation. Is one of our barriers that there is no fop package for Fedora? And we want it compiled with gcj?
- Karsten
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 06:32:34PM -0800, Karsten Wade wrote:
I'm poking Tim for some input.
The xmltex and passivetex applications are no longer supported upstream. I think the new way is to use some sort of ConTeXt-based parser, but don't know the details.
I don't fully understand the issues. IIRC, we were discussing using fop instead of the tex backend for pdf generation. Is one of our barriers that there is no fop package for Fedora? And we want it compiled with gcj?
If we had a fop package for Fedora, and someone was willing to make the necessary adjustments to xmlto, I feel sure that things would be bound to improve.
Tim. */
<quote who="Tim Waugh">
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 06:32:34PM -0800, Karsten Wade wrote:
I'm poking Tim for some input.
The xmltex and passivetex applications are no longer supported upstream. I think the new way is to use some sort of ConTeXt-based parser, but don't know the details.
I don't fully understand the issues. IIRC, we were discussing using fop instead of the tex backend for pdf generation. Is one of our barriers that there is no fop package for Fedora? And we want it compiled with gcj?
If we had a fop package for Fedora, and someone was willing to make the necessary adjustments to xmlto, I feel sure that things would be bound to improve.
When do we start?
Tim.
*/
fedora-docs-list mailing list fedora-docs-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:20:19 -0000 (GMT), "Gavin Henry" ghenry@suretecsystems.com said:
<quote who="Tim Waugh"> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 06:32:34PM -0800, Karsten Wade wrote:
If we had a fop package for Fedora, and someone was willing to make the necessary adjustments to xmlto, I feel sure that things would be bound to improve.
As a practical matter, what should document authors be doing at this point ?
I'm going to spend some more time this weekend on putting the screenshots into the Installation Guide, so I can try to figure out correct dimensions on the EPS files, build PDFs (albeit with broken headings) and guinea pig anything else that people would like.
On the other hand, if PDF output is Officially Broken then should I be leaving out the EPS stuff from the DocBook source that I push out ? --
Stuart Ellis s.ellis@fastmail.co.uk
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 12:51 +0000, Stuart Ellis wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:20:19 -0000 (GMT), "Gavin Henry" ghenry@suretecsystems.com said:
<quote who="Tim Waugh"> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 06:32:34PM -0800, Karsten Wade wrote:
If we had a fop package for Fedora, and someone was willing to make the necessary adjustments to xmlto, I feel sure that things would be bound to improve.
As a practical matter, what should document authors be doing at this point ?
I'm going to spend some more time this weekend on putting the screenshots into the Installation Guide, so I can try to figure out correct dimensions on the EPS files, build PDFs (albeit with broken headings) and guinea pig anything else that people would like.
On the other hand, if PDF output is Officially Broken then should I be leaving out the EPS stuff from the DocBook source that I push out ?
Personally, I'd make the doc PDF capable while it was fresh and in front of me, rather then going in to backfill that work later. Unless time required otherwise. In the long run, the time won't be wasted. PDF will eventually work.
OTOH, if you want dispensation to drop the EPS work because PDF is broken, by all means, go ahead. ;-) It won't be _that_ much harder to do it later instead.
- Karsten
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:34:27 -0800, "Karsten Wade" kwade@redhat.com said:
Personally, I'd make the doc PDF capable while it was fresh and in front of me, rather then going in to backfill that work later. Unless time required otherwise. In the long run, the time won't be wasted. PDF will eventually work.
OTOH, if you want dispensation to drop the EPS work because PDF is broken, by all means, go ahead. ;-) It won't be _that_ much harder to do it later instead.
You've pinpointed my inner conflict :-) I would like this to work and I don't mind putting some time in, but it seems a waste to prep and ship a bunch of files that don't do anything. I'll do them and make sure the PDF builds, and will perhaps ship the test release without them if the functionality is still broken. Those of us poor souls who are still on dial-up are very conscious about file sizes :-) --
Stuart Ellis s.ellis@fastmail.co.uk
docs@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Gavin Henry -
Karsten Wade -
Stuart Ellis -
Tim Waugh