RE: Choice of a XSL-Fo processor
big snip $ The evaluation version does not include the API $ documentation: it is meant $ to let people assess formatting quality, memory footprint and $ performance. $ In our view, detailed knowledge of API is not necessary for making a $ purchase $ decision. Well, that depends on the requirements one has for software. I for one would not choose any tool if I had not been able to evaluate those things that I would be using the tool for. I agree that very detailed API knowledge may not be required but on the other hand: if I could choose between a tool that I could evaluate in full (and thus have a reasonable idea of what to expect in the future) for a limited time and a tool that I could partially test I'd go for the tool that I could test in full (provided it passed the test, of course). Just my $0.02, Michiel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Choice of a XSL-Fo processor
hi, even i am working on a similar sort of project of making PDF from XSL-FO. I evaluated XEP, FOP XFC by IBM. XFC is quite good but the file size very large compare to other rendering engines. so it may not be of much help. XEP gives has a windows COM wrapper available but not for free. It should be of use if you don't want to use the command-line application. The evaluation version of XEP adds a line Rendered by www.RenderX.com line to the left bottom of the PDF output page. So this version can not be used for commercial purpose. I tried to find out about the prices of COM component, but i din't get a reply from RenderX as yet. (if anyone can figure out the prices do let me know) Apache FOP: is good. But it still does not support many properties. But u can get the desired output by doing changes in your XSL-FO file. Hopefully newer releases of FOP will have all the properties implemented. Let me know if you get some more information abut these rendering engines. Thanks, Dhiraj - Original Message - From: Michiel Verhoef [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 12:47 PM Subject: RE: Choice of a XSL-Fo processor big snip $ The evaluation version does not include the API $ documentation: it is meant $ to let people assess formatting quality, memory footprint and $ performance. $ In our view, detailed knowledge of API is not necessary for making a $ purchase $ decision. Well, that depends on the requirements one has for software. I for one would not choose any tool if I had not been able to evaluate those things that I would be using the tool for. I agree that very detailed API knowledge may not be required but on the other hand: if I could choose between a tool that I could evaluate in full (and thus have a reasonable idea of what to expect in the future) for a limited time and a tool that I could partially test I'd go for the tool that I could test in full (provided it passed the test, of course). Just my $0.02, Michiel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Choice of a XSL-Fo processor
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]
Re: Choice of a XSL-Fo processor
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]
Re: Choice of a XSL-Fo processor
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]
Re: Choice of a XSL-Fo processor
Matt Savino wrote: 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? I believe XEP has an embeddable version but only for a fee. Apparently the reason my developer couldn't find an API to XEP is that there is none. There is none freely available, but this is what I read this on their support list some time ago : «The commercial version of XEP comes with a fourth document that describes various programming interfaces available in XEP. The evaluation version does not include the API documentation: it is meant to let people assess formatting quality, memory footprint and performance. In our view, detailed knowledge of API is not necessary for making a purchase decision. Best regards, Nikolai Grigoriev RenderX» - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
