Re: [docbook-apps] production environment

["W. Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>]

On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 12:27:05PM -0400, Keith Fahlgren wrote:
...

I agree with you, that DocBook XML is a very good choice for all
kind of software documentation (or very similar areas). I also
agree, that dedicated editors such as XXE (if one prefers a
graphical editor) or GNU Emacs + nxml-mode (for the "geeks")
will have less problems than trying to use a word processor, be
it MS-Word or OpenOffice. However, the toolchain is IMHO much
easier to use for formats such as (X)HTML and CHM than for PDF
(via FO or other ways), esp. when you prefer free software.
Currently, there is no free software FO processor that is able
to handle DocBook XSL really. The non-FO solutions (via LaTeX)
are also not perfect and cannot handle multi-language text.

> customizations to the default stylesheets. For example, see the
> recently published Unicode Explained
> (http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/unicode) which was produced from
> XSL-FO and looks
> quite good (though perhaps I'm no the best judge).

In the sample chapter I can see some artifacts on page 125, on
page 128 an Euro symbol seems to be missing, on page 132 the
Greek letter pi is represented wronly, on 134 multiple artifacts
again, etc., so this example is a negative one.

Cheers, WB