Keith Fahlgren <keith / oreilly.com> writes:

> On Saturday 05 August 2006 9:23 pm, Dave Thomas wrote:
>> > It's probably "just too much work". nd I don't know of a CSS
>> > solution that does really high-quality typesetting. With XSL-FO,
>> > that's different, but even less people know this.)
>>
>> Yeah, but pure FO just doesn't hack the book stuff (and indexing is a
>> serious, serious hack... :)
>>
>> One day it'll happen, and we'll try our best to be there.
>
> I'll strongly disagree with this. Pure FO is more than ready to handle 
> complex technical books. If you'd like to see what it's capable of, 
> pick up a copy of Unicode Explained 
> (http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/unicode) or the forthcoming PHP 
> Cookbook 2e (http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/phpckbk2) or Rails Cookbook 
> (http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/railsckbk/) [the paper, _not_ the Rough 
> Cut version], all of which were/will be produced from XSL-FO and look 
> quite good.

Do you know which FO formatter they use?

> For those interested in (a lot) more, see: 
> http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/index.html. 
>
>
> PS: CSS, on the other hand, is not ready for high-quality typesetting, 
> as the others have said.

Is there a CSS to FO translator?

> HTH,
> Keith
-- 
Christian Neukirchen  <chneukirchen / gmail.com>  http://chneukirchen.org