From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-14 03:00:00
"Eric Niebler" <eric_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Looking at the end result, I can't say I think fop-0.91beta is an
> improvement. :-P Unless you *really* need to embed png files, I say
> stick with fop-0.20.X.
I expect that output is somewhat tunable. Is it just OOTB formatting
that you think is no improvement, or does it look like there are more
fundamental issues here?
Care to post two PDFs for side-by-side comparison?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk