Uttered Mark Wielaard <mark(a)klomp.org>, spake thus:
On Tue, 2007-01-02 at 10:36 -0500, Francis Kung wrote:
> > - gcj-compiled DocBook toolchain
> > It seems we have made lots of progress with FOP and Batik since the
> > last discussion about this:
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.documentation/4582
> > Does anybody know where we are with that at this time?
> > Would be nice to coordinate with the fedora-docs-list if we can
> > provide something.
> Batik is working much better on Classpath now. I don't know what areas
> of Batik are used by DocBook, however, so I don't know how well we do in
> this regard.
> I've been working mostly off of the standard sample files that come with
> Batik, but I can concentrate on this if we know what areas are needed.
> I haven't heard of any other progress on the FOP/DocBook front.
Karsten (CCed) Do you have a link or description of how the gcj-compiled
DocBook toolchain should work to be useful for the doc-team?
I've been a major contributor to the FDP/DocBook, mostly in the tools area.
I've developed some XMLTO patches that will let us use FOP et. al. and ASUI,
Tim Waugh -- the XMLTO maintainer -- is hanging fire waiting for there to
actually be a native FOP package.
I'm not sure what you're asking for here, so I'll shotgun a bunch of points
the hope one will be near the mark.
As far as batik is concerned, we would mostly be using it via FOP; batik would
not absolutely need to be packaged separately, but it would be nice to use
standalone. If I were assigning the priority, I'd want batik-like function
via the FOP interface rather than standalone batik.
The preferred rendering would be to PNG objects first, with a JPG alternative
a middling second. No GIF, TIF and all the rest needed.
I'm sure Karsten and Paul W Frields will weigh in later, but this should be