Elliot wrote:
However, if cost and/or throughput speed are an important business issue,
you may find that you can either compromise a bit on layout and typography
and apply FO at a much lower cost/faster turnaround or take advantage of
proprietary extensions to meet typographic requirements. But this requires a
careful, detailed analysis of the typographic and layout requirements of a
given publication to determine if FO can meet requirements.
We use xsl-fo to generate course materials (in a "book" format) and
have found there are two main difficulties that we cannot surmount.
One of them is the keep-with-next is not up to par and the other is
the way it treats graphics--although this may be a pdf issue that we
are just more aware of now that we're generating with xsl-fo. We
haven't come across anyone else experiencing this (inconsistent
resizing of graphics and failure of the process when a graphic ends up
being too big!) so we are looking for work-arounds. In general, we
have definitely found that you have to live with the downsides in
order to output complex publications with xsl-fo.
For automating higher typographic quality, the Typefi product (an InDesign
plug in) offers excellent value, although it's initial cost is high (on the
order 50K USD). Likewise, you can do significant automation with Arbortext
Advanced Publisher (3B2) and XyVision XPP, but at a similar or greater cost
than Typefi.
And now...I'm off to check out Typfi! Thanks :)
Julie
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--