Thanks Betty for filling in some of the blanks. (I was mixing up XEP and
PassiveTex in a post I made earlier. I forgot XEP is RenderX.)
I just had a couple of questions:
Antenna House is Windows-only right?
Do you think XEP's command line-driven approach would work within a J2EE
internet application dynamically generating printable reports?
Apparently the reason my developer couldn't find an API to XEP is that
there is none. I'd rather avoid hassling with temp files and calling
command line driven batch processes from within my application if I can
avoid it.
Thanks a lot for all your help.
-Matt
Betty Harvey wrote:
>
> Aurelien:
>
> I recently went through this exercise. I evaluated FOP, XEP and
> AntennaHouse. I didn't evaluate PassiveTex. I started putting together
> analysis sheet together of the different products but haven't completed it
> yet. For commercial projects I think both XEP and Antenna House work very
> well. XEP provided more of the functionality we required (internal and
> external linking and side navigation bar (extension to FO). Although I
> understand that Antenna House will have some of this functionality in the
> next release. However, you have to use a XSLT parser to create the FO
> file first. XEP is command-line driven. Another good feature of XEP and
> FOP is that it created the PDF and doesn't require Distiller. FOP also
> has a side-navigation bar extension.
>
> I liked Antenna Houses graphical user interface for the
> development of the XSL-FO. This is a nice development tool because
> you can see the results without creating a PDF file and opening
> the Reader to see the results. However, to create a PDF file you
> do need Distiller. I used the evaluation version of Antenna House
> recently to print training materials for a training class and I
> was very happy with the results.
>
> I originally created my XSL-FO file to work with XEP. I had
> one to change one attribute in the XSL file to get it to work
> with Antenna House ("fo:page-sequence master-reference" to
> "fo:page-sequence master-name"). I had to do major surgery to
> get it to work with FOP because of the unsupported features.
>
> Bottom line both XEP and Antenna House are good and seem
> very stable. If I get my analysis sheet completed I may post it
> if anyone is interested.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Betty
>
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, GISBERT Aurélien (DSIT-EX) wrote:
>
> >
> > I have to do a comparison between the different existing XSL-Fo processors.
> > I focused on these ones:
> > -FOP, Apache
> > -XEP, RenderX
> > -Antenna House XSL Processor
> > -PassiveTeX
> >
> > Could you give me their "good and bad parts"?
> > Who support them?
> > What are the aims of each one about the XSL specification?
> > Finally, is there any other good XSL-Fo processors?
> >
> > I understood that these 4 XSL-Fo processors were all compliant to the basic
> > conformance level in the W3C recommendation, and also to some of the objects
> > and properties of the extended level.
> >
> > I would like to have your opinions. I have to transform an XML document into
> > a PDF file, using a specific model of presentation (first page, contents,
> > headers, titles, ...)
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > -----------------------
> > Aurelien Gisbert
> > Engineer student in the INSA of Lyon, France
> > Internee in the SNCF, France (working with Alain Herbuel, in the DSIT-EX
> > section)
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
