David Tolpin writes:

 >  Yes, you are right. PassiveTeX is yet another opportunity,
 >  although installing the right version of TeX is a bit
 > prohibiting for a casual user. Besides that, I didn't find
 >  at the site mentioned a definitive list of what is supported
 >  and what is not by the formatter. If it were possible to check
true. I need to make a formal list.

I downloaded  most of the renderx stuff today, and am depressed to see 
how far they have got! I'll use the test file as a meter for
PassiveTeX, and put up the PassiveTeX version so that you can compare.


 >  it would help a lot to estimate it's full-featuredness.
 >  Unfortunately, the only xsl fo available as an example of
 > PassiveTeX's functionality is not an XSL FO, since it contains
 >  'custom' elements (fotex:bookmark).

which are declared with a namespace correctly, surely?

sebastian


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list