DOCBOOK-APPS: Re: FO stylesheets compatibility with PassiveTex and Fop

[Alex Lancaster <alexl@users.sourceforge.net>]

>>>>> "NW" == Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> writes:

NW> / Alex Lancaster <alexl@users.sourceforge.net> was heard to say: |

NW> | May I make a humble suggestion to the Open DocBook Repository
NW> folks?  | For future releases it would be *really nice* if in the
NW> RELEASE-NOTES, | you could include the current compatibility
NW> status of the XSL-FO with | respect to both PassiveTeX and
NW> Apache's FOP.

NW> No argument, it would be really nice. I've been trying to get a
NW> descent test harness up and running for a while, but it rarely
NW> reaches the top of my todo list. And really "doing it right" would
NW> require keeping several versions of PassiveTeX and FOP around,
NW> including the most recent CVS versions.

NW> All quite managable in theory.

Understood, it's a big ask to do it properly, but even a quick sanity
check with the most recent Fop and PassiveTeX would be good.

NW> | Another suggestion: it is unfortunate that the stylesheets are
NW> held | hostage by the current incomplete implementations of the
NW> FO->PDF | processors, it effectively means that the FO sheets
NW> can't really be | fully tested without the complete XML->FO-PDF
NW> stage.  Would it be too | hard to add a 'compatibility' mode to
NW> the stylesheets for PassiveTeX | acceptable XSL-FO (like
NW> fo-patch-for-fop.xsl)?

NW> I'm quite willing, within reason, to stick to features that are
NW> widely implemented, or use the {processor}-extensions hook to
NW> tweak things.  Usually when something breaks, especially at the FO
NW> processor level, it's because I don't know I broke it.

[...]

NW> | [Incidentally if either FOP or PassiveTeX break, how do you
NW> (i.e. Bob, | Norm etc.) actually test the XSL-FO are 'Doing the
NW> Right/Expected | Thing' in terms of the final printed output?  Do
NW> you rely on other | tools, or simply conformance with the written
NW> XSL-FO spec?]

NW> Honestly, I rely mostly on xep. Bad norm, no biscuit.

Ah!  XEP!  I thought so.  That's part of RenderX right?  I figured you
must be using something other than Fop and PassiveTeX, since both Fop
and PassiveTeX are lagging in their implementations of the XSL-FO spec
somewhat.  I know that RenderX now have a free version for academic or
non-profit, which could take advantage of, but's that not the same as
open source! ;-) Even if PassiveTeX and Fop lag, at least they're open
source, and I'd take them anytime over the proprietary equivalents.

Alex