Hide Forgot
From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041111 Firefox/1.0 Description of problem: Request For Enhancement: FOP (Formatting Objects Processor) is the world's first print formatter driven by XSL formatting objects (XSL-FO) and the world's first output independent formatter. It is a Java application that reads a formatting object (FO) tree and renders the resulting pages to a specified output. Output formats currently supported include PDF, PCL, PS, SVG, XML (area tree representation), Print, AWT, MIF and TXT. The primary output target is PDF. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): xmlto-0.0.18.tar.bz2 How reproducible: Didn't try Steps to Reproduce: Additional info:
Created attachment 123143 [details] Patches to use FOP instead of passivetex New output conversions are also available, courtesy of FOP. For documents of type "fo": awt dvi mif pcl pdf ps svg txt For documents of type "docbook": awt fo html-nochunks javahelp mif pdf svg xhtml dvi html htmlhelp man pcl ps txt xhtml-nochunks
Fedora Core 3 is now maintained by the Fedora Legacy project for security updates only. If this problem is a security issue, please reopen and reassign to the Fedora Legacy product. If it is not a security issue and hasn't been resolved in the current FC5 updates or in the FC6 test release, reopen and change the version to match. Thank you!
Still not done in current release and it has nothing to do with exact FC version. Moving as FutureFeature in devel line.
FOP is now built and available in rawhide: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-java-list/2007-November/msg00030.html We're interested in testing this in Fedora Docs. If you can update xmlto to use FOP (perhaps Tommy's patches still work?), then we can use the full Fedora Docs toolchain in testing. Thanks - Karsten
Tommy's patches are good, but I don't want to use fop instead of passivetex - I would like to make an option to choose fop instead of passivetex. I got upstream from Tim Waugh, fop support(and some other things) should be done in xmlto 0.0.20 - I'm working on it and I hope it will be done in December 2007. It would be great to test it by Fedora Docs toolchain - there is a lot of limitations in passivetex usage and option of fop processing is good thing.
(In reply to comment #5) > Tommy's patches are good, but I don't want to use fop instead of passivetex - I > would like to make an option to choose fop instead of passivetex. That makes sense. The established tool is passivetex; does it also provide a smaller filesystem and package dependency footprint? So FOP can be called as an optional processor. > I got upstream > from Tim Waugh, fop support(and some other things) should be done in xmlto > 0.0.20 - I'm working on it and I hope it will be done in December 2007. It would > be great to test it by Fedora Docs toolchain - there is a lot of limitations in > passivetex usage and option of fop processing is good thing. Agreed, we're eager to test it too. As soon as you have anything working in rawhide, please email fedora-docs-list@redhat.com and/or myself directly and I'll pass on the notice.
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Tommy's patches are good, but I don't want to use fop instead of passivetex - I > > would like to make an option to choose fop instead of passivetex. > > That makes sense. The established tool is passivetex; does it also provide a > smaller filesystem and package dependency footprint? So FOP can be called as an > optional processor. Sorry, that doesn't read correctly. How about, "Having an established, probably smaller footprint tool as the default is fine with me. That would mean FOP is called as an optional processor, right?"
Yep, fop would be called as optional processor for xmlto. Just built xmlto with experimental fop support in rawhide. Package xmlto-0.0.20-1.fc9 , closing RAWHIDE.