Re: FO to RTF, request for a systematic approach

[Keiron Liddle]

On Mon, 2002-07-29 at 17:52, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> I'd go for 2.2 as this avoids having to maintain two RTF document libraries 
> (jfor and FOP) during the transition. I think that's what Chris Scott is 
> working on, but I haven't seen his code or design yet, hence my request to 
> him for an early release.

That sounds like a good idea.
Release early and release often as they say.

> Hope this helps clarify things.
> -Bertrand



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: FO to RTF, request for a systematic approach

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hello Hansuli,

Here's my point of view regarding FO to RTF

> FO to RTF
>
> 1. Requirements:

Integrate the existing jfor code (www.jfor.org) into FOP so that FOP can 
become a better XSL-FO to RTF converter than jfor currently is.

> 2 Candidate solutions

2.1 move all jfor code in the FOP codebase and start from there

evaluation: as it will take some time for FOP to be better than jfor regarding 
RTF generation, this means maintaining two RTF libraries until FOP is ready 
and released. This is a serious waste of resources IMHO.

2.2 in a first step, use jfor in binary form and connect it to FOP using the 
StructureHandler concept

evaluation: first implementation (to generate a basic RTF document while 
ignoring most formatting) should be easy, using jfor's 
org.jfor.jfor.converter package as an example. Then, need to handle 
StructureHandler events in more detail. 

I'd go for 2.2 as this avoids having to maintain two RTF document libraries 
(jfor and FOP) during the transition. I think that's what Chris Scott is 
working on, but I haven't seen his code or design yet, hence my request to 
him for an early release.

Hope this helps clarify things.
-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]