Re: [lmi] notes on using xmlroff

[Greg Chicares]

On 2009-12-21 15:42Z, Vaclav Slavik wrote:
> 
> I looked into using xmlroff (its latest version as we as the SVN
> version) instead of FOP, but my results are rather discouraging so far.
[...]
> In short, I think we're better off with Apache FOP.

Thanks for looking into this. BTW:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.text.xml/browse_thread/thread/ed0c965911ae3a9/2b536641e509bc6b
| I use XSLT to generate LaTeX code from XML text, and then run pdfLaTeX
| to produce PDF. I find this is faster, easier to program, and produces
| better quality typography than any of the XSL:FO methods.

Does that sound like a worthwhile idea, for the long term?

For now, we've got a lot of xsl-fo code that "works", more or less.
Switching to a different rendering path would take considerable time
and effort. OTOH, it takes an awful lot of time and effort already
to maintain and extend the present code; in the long term, we'd
probably be better off redesigning it--perhaps even changing the
fundamental technique.

IOW, if we began afresh today with the goal of creating formatted,
paginated pdf output from text and numbers created in C++, would we
pick a different path than C++ --> xml --> xslt --> fo --> pdf?