I only meant that if we replace the RTF capability with something
equivalent. I use the RTF generation so that I can then convert a few
things to MS Word (can't ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room). I
think "ODF" was in the post I replied to, so I just used that as an
example.
What I do now is the following:
doc.xml --------------|
doc.pdf
|--> XSLT ENGINE --> doc.fo --> FOP --> {
doc.rtf }
translator_doc.xsl
--| .....
Putting something into FOP to generate ODF wouldn't make much sense,
IMHO. I think it'd just be another xslt script to translate the FO file
to ODF. Or write a plug-in for OpenOffice to read in FO files
(obviously another project!).
I think we'll lose users if we don't keep something that lets them
generate docs that are interoperable with the 800 pound gorilla. How we
do that is the question.
Just my 2 cents....
-- Mark C. Allman,
PMP
-- Allman
Professional
Consulting, Inc.
-- 617-947-4263
--
www.allmanpc.com
BusinessMsg -- the
secure, managed,
J2EE/AJAX
Enterprise IM/IC
solution.
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 11:29 +0200, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Mark C. Allman a écrit :
> > Drop RTF with nothing to replace it, e.g., ODF? I'd rather not.
> >
> > Swap out RTF with, say, ODF? Sounds great to me.
> >
> > I'd even volunteer some time to help with development. I seem to
> > remember something about Java.... ;-]
>
> Thanks for your offer to help!
>
> However... would that make sense to produce ODF from XSL-FO? There is no
> semantic construction at all in FO, whereas there is some in ODF. The
> other way around looks much more useful to me; as style informations are
> stored using FO, this should be very easy to convert an ODF document
> into plain XSL-FO.
>
> Typically the transformation chain:
> XML —> XSL-FO —+—> RTF
> |
> +—> PDF
> would be replaced by:
> XML —+—> XSL-FO —> PDF
> |
> +—> ODF
>
>
> WDYT?
> Vincent
>
