Re: Print (PDF) Formatting of Spec - also, title elements

One of the items on my to do list is to come up with a better method of
generating PDF versions of the spec. I will look at some combination of
html2ps and Acrobat Web Capture. One advantage that I have, being an Adobe
employee, is that I might be able to get access to pre-release versions of
enhancements to web capture.

Right now, all I do is Web Capture (using Acrobat 4) the HTML version of
the spec, which results in all of the problems which Dave is reporting.

So, this will get fixed, but whether it will be fixed for the next public
draft depends on the timing of the next draft and whether there are higher
priority editing tasks.


Jon Ferraiolo
SVG Editor
Adobe Systems Incorporated

At 05:51 PM 4/13/00 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
>
>
>Dave J Woolley wrote:
>> 
>> > From: Chris Lilley [SMTP:chris@w3.org]
>> >
>> > It *is* the html2ps tool, followed by distilling.
>> >
>>         [DJW:]  Unless it has been re-issued since
>>         yesterday (I've just revalidated the URLs without
>>         any change), it is using "Acrobat Web Capture 4.0",
>>         as one step.
>
>Aha. Well OK, *previously* it was using html2ps followed by distilling. 
>
>Yes, the current version of Web captutre does not understand CSS at all,
>regardless of where you put the stylesheet. This might change - I encourage
>interested parties to mail Adobe and ask for this feature, to demonstrate
>customer demand. If there are other good things that htrml2ps does that
>webcapture does not, likewise. But that is a bit outside the scope of this
>list.
>
>
>> > It looks to me as if the headings are used to construct the TOC.
>>         [DJW:]
>>         Again, unless it was re-issued since yesterday,
>>         the outline tree is compatible with having been
>>         constructed from the title elements.
>
>There is only one title per chapter, yet the expanded TOC has multiple
>entries per chapter. However, since you pointed out that the title and the
>h1 are the same for each chapter, perhaps that explains it.
>
>--
>Chris
>

Received on Thursday, 13 April 2000 12:23:03 UTC