[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Saxon?

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]