Re: [Groff] Lack of quality print output from DocBook

[Michael(tm) Smith]

Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden>, 2007-01-04 07:52 +0100:

> What I imagine is to conditionally tag the
> input for a certain output `device' (be it LaTeX, troff, or whatever).
> Such tags are ignored if the document is converted to a different
> device.  The more such data is in the original input file, the better.

That's exactly what an XML processing instruction is. They are put
in the original input file, not in any intermediate file. So you
can have <? latex:page-break ?> <? troff:page-break ?> etc. all in
the same input file.

> I don't like the idea to edit intermediate files.  It's far too easy
> to overwrite or remove them accidentally -- and sometimes it's
> necessary to regenerate them because the source has changed.  It would
> be crazy to start over again with adaptation to the output device.

I agree. I wasn't suggesting manually touching up XSL-FO files.

> > Indeed.  And that state of things (the lack of any open-source tools
> > for generating production-quality output from XSL-FO) does not show
> > any signs of changing any time soon.
> 
> Well, this means that we should concentrate on converting to either
> TeX (be it LaTeX or ConTeXt) or troff.

Well, as far as LaTeX and ConTeXt go, dblatex is already quite far
along, and I know Benoit has more recently done work again on his
DocBook-to-ConTeXt converter (which might end up being quite a bit
better even than dblatex).

But it still would be good to have a general DocBook-to-troff
stylesheet (not just a DocBook-to-man one). I just don't want to
be the one who has to make it :)

  --Mike