On 04.02.2005 17:06:25 JBryant wrote: > I was also taken aback by what seems to be a plug for RenderX. FOP does > all that I need, so I've never looked at RenderX, and this doesn't seem a > like a logical forum in which to plug a commercial product.
I think Glen simply wanted to say that RenderX XEP is currently more advanced than FOP which is a fact. That doesn't say that FOP is bad. For most purposes FOP is strong enough. There are simply some (well documented) restrictions that currently apply. I hope that changes soon. I'm working on it... :-) Who wants to help? > Unfortunately, while I have produced several large PDF files (my record so > far is a bit over 1600 pages) with FOP, I can't share them with anyone > outside the company for which I am consulting. > > I would, however, be willing to develop a large representative example. I > would just need the content. From there, I could develop the XSLT that > would write the FO that FOP uses (my usual method for writing FO - I > generally only look at the FO to debug). So, if someone can provide or > point to a large open-source XML document that I could convert with FOP, > I'd give it a go. Oh, it would be sooooo cool if we could have our own PDF of the XSL 1.0 specification [1]. The official PDF was created by RenderX. I thought about doing a stylesheet for that myself but I'm currently so busy coding on FOP 1.0dev that I'd be more than happy if someone from the user community could do that. It would also be interesting to compare FOP 0.20.5 and FOP 1.0dev which is under development. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/ Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
