Subject: Re: [docbook-apps] DocBook -> PDF paths that aren't hugely expensive?
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 08:48:55AM -0400, maxwell wrote: > On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 03:11:37 -0700, Robin Lee Powell > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > - dblatex is hugely brittle (trust me on this) > > I guess I don't trust you on this. *chuckle* *That* was unexpected (not). :D > We've been using dblatex for several years now on book-length > grammars, with excellent results for articles, "reports", and > books. It's true that we don't exercise all the DocBook elements > (we don't use most of the computational elements, for example), > but I would be surprised to find dblatex having significant > problems there. Between the command-line parameters to dblatex > (which can be put into a .xsl file) and LaTeX style sheets, > there's not much you can't tweak. What I was specifically referring to was docbook.sty, which I thought dblatex required you to use to function. It has really horrible things in it, like fixed sizes for elements that are based on A4 and won't work on anything else. I have just discovered (like, literally, 2 minutes before I sent this email) that I absolutely do *not* have to use docbook.sty, and in fact that there are alternative styles out there for this purpose. So, umm, sorry about that. -_- -Robin -- http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future. .i ko na cpedu lo nu stidi vau loi jbopre .i danfu lu na go'i li'u .e lu go'i li'u .i ji'a go'i lu na'e go'i li'u .e lu go'i na'i li'u .e lu no'e go'i li'u .e lu to'e go'i li'u .e lu lo mamta be do cu sofybakni li'u