RE: [XSL-FO] fop and external graphic
- Hi Bryan,
try to use <fo:external-graphic src="file:./deleuran01.jpg"/>
> -----Original Message-----http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> From: Bryan Rasmussen [mailto:bry@...]
> Sent: 14 March 2002 14:10
> To: XSL-FO@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [XSL-FO] fop and external graphic
> fop(fop 0.20.1) is supposed to implement
> fo:external-graphic, has anyone
> found a bug in that implementation, or discovered that they
> do not in fact
> so implement it? I've tried currently fo:external-graphic and
> fo:inline-graphic, neither works. here is the example:
> content-height="auto" content-width="auto"
> href="deleuran01.jpg"/> and
> <fo:external-graphic src="deleuran01.jpg"/>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> Buy Stock for $4.
> No Minimums.
> FREE Money 2002.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
RE: [XSL-FO] "wysiwyg" XML editor
We've used Frame and now we use Epic. My point would be that one of the reasons we moved to SGML and XML was to split the content and the formatting. The world of desktop publishing came and took many hours of writer time away from content and focused it on format. By pulling the WYSIWYG out, and putting it in a style sheet, you leave more time for getting the content right for every writer in the department. The style sheet person can make alterations to the format, as needed, but the writers don't have to worry about it.
Given that separating the content and the format is one of the major uses, should it be surprising that we aren't finding many WYSIWYG applications out there that effective combine the content and the format?
Just my two cents.
- If you don't need print (at least right away), there
is also XMetaL from SoftQuad. The "wysiwyg" is not as
sophisticated as Epic, for example.
But the answer to your surprise is fairly simple.
XML for use as an integration medium (i.e., in
software or data uses) is "big" but on the information
side (a.k.a. for human consumption), it still hasn't
quite gotten "huge". Too many companies think all
you need is something like Word and don't see a
reason to move their information assets to anything
more powerful despite all the "knowlegde management"
P.S. There *are* several editors that play more to the
integration/data users where content isn't paragraphs,
long sections etc., but instead is short snippets.
But WYSIWYG they are *not*.
[snipped From: Anders Svensson]
> But again, what really surprises me is the fact that there
> aren't more competing editors out there already. I mean we
> all know that XML is huge and growing all the time, and yet
> there must be a way for writers (who are usually not
> knowledgeable in XML) to actually produce the XML material...