Re: Why do you use FOP instead of ...
Well since you said please and it is a sunny day (at least in LA)... Roland wrote: > > At 11:58 AM 2/1/02 -0800, you wrote: > >I've attached an XSLT stylesheet that we use to create a PDF version of > >a clinical trial participant's lab report. It uses some fairly > > Can you please send us an example of the generated pdf file? > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] LabReport.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why do you use FOP instead of ...
At 11:58 AM 2/1/02 -0800, you wrote: >I've attached an XSLT stylesheet that we use to create a PDF version of >a clinical trial participant's lab report. It uses some fairly Can you please send us an example of the generated pdf file? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why do you use FOP instead of ...
I'd also say that fo: is only as complicated as professional print quality document layout. Which can give me a headache all by itself. If iText is simpler than fo: it's because there are things you may want to do with a document which iText won't do for you (we dropped it and went to fo: because we felt this). Conversely, I think that as a language, xsl: is much less complex than java. It's maybe just that we're all used to java-style languages with variable assignment so we think they're easier. I now find xsl: pretty simple after 2 years working with it, whilst I can frequently get bogged down in java. It's just hard to get used to a language which is very focussed on one task rather than aimed at generality: kind of like switching to a wirestripper after years of getting by with a swiss army penknife. Alistair -Original Message- From: Joerg Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:08 AM To: FOP Dev Subject: RE: Why do you use FOP instead of ... Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wrong! Look at iText http://www.lowagie.com/iText/ to see how simple their > examples are. They build a complex table with just a few lines of java > codes. Try doing the same with the XML/XSLT/XSL:FO approach and I guarantee > you that the total outcome will be much more both in lines and complexity. > I think to generate PDF with iText is as easy as generating XML from Java. > XSLT is just a complicated language. You seem to assume that everyone wants to generates PDF form a Java program, using XML/XSLFO only as intermediate steps. In this case, you would have a point. However, it is possible that 1. The primary source is already XML (file or database), or you get XML from a source you can't control (for example a web service). 2. Apart from PDF, you have to present the same information in another format, in particular (X)HTML, perhaps and/or WML, VoiceXML, SVG ... I have to note we also generate source code in various programming languages as well as DDL and initial databease input from our XML using XSLT. If one of the above is true for a project, XSLT+FO can save some work and ease maintenance. If you have both, it's a very strong case for using XSLT+FO, other approaches are getting unmaintainable quickly. Regards J.Pietschmann - 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: Why do you use FOP instead of ...
Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wrong! Look at iText http://www.lowagie.com/iText/ to see how simple their > examples are. They build a complex table with just a few lines of java > codes. Try doing the same with the XML/XSLT/XSL:FO approach and I guarantee > you that the total outcome will be much more both in lines and complexity. > I think to generate PDF with iText is as easy as generating XML from Java. > XSLT is just a complicated language. You seem to assume that everyone wants to generates PDF form a Java program, using XML/XSLFO only as intermediate steps. In this case, you would have a point. However, it is possible that 1. The primary source is already XML (file or database), or you get XML from a source you can't control (for example a web service). 2. Apart from PDF, you have to present the same information in another format, in particular (X)HTML, perhaps and/or WML, VoiceXML, SVG ... I have to note we also generate source code in various programming languages as well as DDL and initial databease input from our XML using XSLT. If one of the above is true for a project, XSLT+FO can save some work and ease maintenance. If you have both, it's a very strong case for using XSLT+FO, other approaches are getting unmaintainable quickly. Regards J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why do you use FOP instead of ...
I've attached an XSLT stylesheet that we use to create a PDF version of a clinical trial participant's lab report. It uses some fairly complicated presentation logic that by necessity needs take place in the last stage of processing. The FO output that it produces is also somewhat involved, making use of many of the advanced features of XSL:FO. The stylesheet represents about a man-month of work. I sleep a lot better at night knowing that if for some reason FOP can't meet my needs, there's a good chance I can switch over one of the commercial FO->PDF processors without a major coding initiative. If XSL:FO were prorietary to FOP, I would be living in fear of (1) having to learn some new proprietary input format then (2) either weaving it into this stylesheet or worse yet moving all this logic into some Java class. In my opinion XSLT an extremely elegant presentation language. Java seems clunky to me now. If you can manage your XML input so that it represents the underlying structure of the data, you won't need to do much processing at all in your stylesheet (ie - our levels are report, study, doctor, patient, visit, test, analyte, etc.). For most of our management reports the stylesheet is only a few templates and almost no logic. XSLT/XPATH can be a little frustrating/intimidating when you're first learning, especially if there's no one with experience nearby. I have yet to find a good exhaustive XPATH reference. But it becomes more straightforward once you learn all the shorthand. Like any good language, after you learn a few pieces you can start guessing on the syntax. We have a mirror of this stylesheet that outputs an HTML version of the lab report. Yes it's a little bit of work to maintain both in parallel. But I know if I really needed to (I.E. - we had 50 canned reports instead of 6) I could come up with a system that factors out most of the common presentation logic between HTML and FO. As far as I can see, if I was using some straight XML->Java->PDF system like iText, I'd have to either have my HTML generation in a JSP and my iText input creation in some involved Java package, or try to create both outputs from some really involved Java package. I don't think either system would be much fun to mantain from a presentation POV. -Matt Roland wrote: > > At 12:59 PM 2/1/02 -0600, you wrote: > > > > 2. XSLT is also kinda complicated to use, at least if you have to do > > > complicated formatting... > >So is any other kind of programming language. The more complex the task, > >the more lines of coded need to achieve the desired results. > > Wrong! Look at iText http://www.lowagie.com/iText/ to see how simple their > examples are. They build a complex table with just a few lines of java > codes. Try doing the same with the XML/XSLT/XSL:FO approach and I guarantee > you that the total outcome will be much more both in lines and complexity. > I think to generate PDF with iText is as easy as generating XML from Java. > XSLT is just a complicated language. > > But I will take a closer look at our xsl files and see how and if things > could be simplified... > > Roland > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"; xmlns:fo="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format";> http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format";> Page: Laboratory Report , Patient Name Patient ID Age Sex Page of Requisition #
RE: Why do you use FOP instead of ...
At 12:59 PM 2/1/02 -0600, you wrote: > > 2. XSLT is also kinda complicated to use, at least if you have to do > > complicated formatting... >So is any other kind of programming language. The more complex the task, >the more lines of coded need to achieve the desired results. Wrong! Look at iText http://www.lowagie.com/iText/ to see how simple their examples are. They build a complex table with just a few lines of java codes. Try doing the same with the XML/XSLT/XSL:FO approach and I guarantee you that the total outcome will be much more both in lines and complexity. I think to generate PDF with iText is as easy as generating XML from Java. XSLT is just a complicated language. But I will take a closer look at our xsl files and see how and if things could be simplified... Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why do you use FOP instead of ...
Well it is also (after being suggested yesterday). Ralph LaChance wrote: > > > It does seem a shame that this entire quo vadis thread > isn't on fop-user > > ' Best, > -Ralph LaChance > > > > - > 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: Why do you use FOP instead of ...
It does seem a shame that this entire quo vadis thread isn't on fop-user ' Best, -Ralph LaChance - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why do you use FOP instead of ...
> > 1. XSL:FO is a very complicated and messy language Given the power of the language, of course its complicated. Just as Asembler is complicated compared to basic. > 2. XSLT is also kinda complicated to use, at least if you have to do > complicated formatting... So is any other kind of programming language. The more complex the task, the more lines of coded need to achieve the desired results. We have reduced a huge complex XSL files down to a driver file and series of template files. The driver file references templates located in other XSL template files. These templates are then reused from document to document, giving the applications a constant look and feel. Our graphics designer has taken over our FO work. We give him the XML and tell him what the PDF should look like and he builds the XSL file for us. We only need to help occasionally when the XSL requires complex programmatic logic. I will say this. To work effectivly with XML, XST and FO, an application should be designed around the concept. Coming along and adding XSL:FO to an application that does not have a standard XML definition to begin with would be a messy task. Jim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why do you use FOP instead of ...
Forgot to say that our fo formatting would be ready in 10 years when we'll have those *good* voice synthetizer that are supposed to *print* our fo code according to the XSL-FO specs. ;) Fred. --- Ralph LaChance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > At 04:06 PM 2/1/02 -0200, you wrote: > >I will nail down the weaknesses of the XML->PDF > approach: > > > >1. XSL:FO is a very complicated and messy language > >2. XSLT is also kinda complicated to use, at least > if you have to do > >complicated formatting... > > Sometimes it seems folks assume that FO is synomous > with "pdf", > but for some of us, the point of using FO is not to > create pdf output > but to format and send xml data directly to a > printer. ;-) > > > > ' Best, > -Ralph LaChance > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ___ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.fr - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why do you use FOP instead of ...
Ralph LaChance wrote: > At 04:06 PM 2/1/02 -0200, you wrote: > >> I will nail down the weaknesses of the XML->PDF approach: >> >> 1. XSL:FO is a very complicated and messy language >> 2. XSLT is also kinda complicated to use, at least if you have to do >> complicated formatting... > > > Sometimes it seems folks assume that FO is synomous with "pdf", > but for some of us, the point of using FO is not to create pdf output > but to format and send xml data directly to a printer. ;-) > Well, what does it take to develop an XSL-FO interpreter on a printer ? No need to transform to PDF or PS then. I thought of doing it for some time, but got discouraged when an old Xerox guy told me that Adobe actually supplies (for free ?) their PS interpreter and that developing an interpeter and fine-tuning it takes a LOT of time. Patrick Andries - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why do you use FOP instead of ...
Hi Roland, We had the very same prob cause the xsl that translate from our XML content to FO went quite messy as we made all modifications needed to paper export (we're usually building 50->200 pages in our pdfs, with many pictures, tables cause it's made of courses contents). So we made some kind of pre-formatting in a xmlsublanguage of our own then we actually turn everything to fo). That's not a big prob in our context since pdf building is almost an offline task, made by teachers. Cheers, Fred. ___ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.fr - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why do you use FOP instead of ...
At 04:06 PM 2/1/02 -0200, you wrote: >I will nail down the weaknesses of the XML->PDF approach: > >1. XSL:FO is a very complicated and messy language >2. XSLT is also kinda complicated to use, at least if you have to do >complicated formatting... Sometimes it seems folks assume that FO is synomous with "pdf", but for some of us, the point of using FO is not to create pdf output but to format and send xml data directly to a printer. ;-) ' Best, -Ralph LaChance - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why do you use FOP instead of ...
> >I will nail down the weaknesses of the XML->PDF approach: > >1. XSL:FO is a very complicated and messy language >2. XSLT is also kinda complicated to use, at least if you have to do >complicated formatting... I'm replying to my own email adding that of course I would be glad if someone can show me how to make a simpler XSLT. Maybe we just didn't figure out how to make the XSLT simple. But please take a look at the iText http://www.lowagie.com/iText/ examples first. That is what I call simplicity!!! Also keep in mind that we generate many different tables, with different formatting each on a single pdf document. Best regards, Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why do you use FOP instead of ...
At 10:32 AM 2/1/02 -0600, you wrote: >step to use XSL:FO to generate PDF since we already had XML being generated. >One of the real blessings of this approach is our clients can customize the >look and feel of the application by changing the XSL files without our ever >opening a Java source file. We also have a web based service here, and currently are using the same approach as you are, but the problems we encouter are the following: If you generate XSL:FO from XML, the XSLT(stylesheet) can become very complicated, at least for us because: We generate a lot of tables, and they are quite different what concerns the formatting/color. That means, there has to be a section in the XSLT for each type of table and complicated if-then-else decisions to decide which formatting to apply and how. Take into account also, that up to now you have to manually code in the column width of each column in every table for FOP, this is a nightmare! In other words, changing the XSLT is much, much, much more painfull than changing a java source file(supposing the use of iText). An alternative for having a simpler XSLT, would be to encode most of the formatting in the XML, but then you would have XML with formatting information, and if you want to change the look and feel you have to change the java source that is generating the XML. I think the use of XSLT is only usefull if you have a standardized look and feel, like every table looks the same way, etc... But even then, if you decide that you need a new table it is very difficult to define a new formatting using XSLT to generate XSL:FO. XSL:FO is a complicated language, and the complexity transfers to the generating XSLT(which is cumbersome enough on its own), which looks like a big messy thing here at the company. Our XSLT files are currently VERY long and MESSY. It would be much simpler to code the same thing in Java, take a look at the iText page and their examples(http://www.lowagie.com/iText/). And if you still need your XML, you can take this approach: 1. Generate XML from Java for whatever you need. 2. Generate the PDF from Java using iText. I think this is probably the approach we are gonna take here... And if you code smartly you can arrange is to also not have to change the java source for a change of look and feel. Just store the formatting information in a '.properties' file like: tableBackGroundColor=red tableFont=Roman8 etc... Then you can change the look and fell by just editing that properties file... I will nail down the weaknesses of the XML->PDF approach: 1. XSL:FO is a very complicated and messy language 2. XSLT is also kinda complicated to use, at least if you have to do complicated formatting... Best regards...Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why do you use FOP instead of ...
Hi all, I'm working on an e-learning at a french university. We adopted fop the very same reason Jim has stated. But i also use iText as a hack for some special purposes (re-ordering/re-sizing/watermarking mostly) I think we also made this choice "for the future" as: - first, we have a pure xml/xsl technology system (no transitiional xml sub-language to drive iText - second, we can use SVG (we have a nice grpahic designer and i can import SVG directly in my FO code) Hope this helps, if you have to choose one of these technologies for your project. Dref. --- Jim Urban <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > Our application is a servlet based web application. > We have adopted the MVC > approach. We found Cacoon over kill, so we > implmented our own frame work. > Our frame work requires all business components > produce XML. We then use > XSL:HTML to format HTML output for the browser. It > was only a natural next > step to use XSL:FO to generate PDF since we already > had XML being generated. > One of the real blessings of this approach is our > clients can customize the > look and feel of the application by changing the XSL > files without our ever > opening a Java source file. > > It was a BIG investment and learning curve up front > to take this approach, > but now that we are past that phase, the return on > the investment has > enabled us to justify the up front expense. Looking > back, I think it was a > vary sound decission. We are in a position where > adding WAP (WML) and a B2b > SOAP interface are a natural extension of our > framework, not a rewrite. > > Thank yous go to not only FOP, but Xalan and Xerces > for all the XML and XSL > support! > > Jim Urban > Product Manager > Netsteps Inc. > Suite 505E > 1 Pierce Pl. > Itasca, IL 60143 > Voice: (630) 250-3045 x2164 > Fax: (630) 250-3046 > > > > > > > At 08:58 PM 1/29/02 -0500, you wrote: > > >I would like to know why FOP enthousiast (I am > one) are using FO rather > > >than products such as Crystal Reports or other > such software (anyone > > >Jetfoms ?). Just for the fun of playing with new > technology ? > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ___ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.fr - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why do you use FOP instead of ...
Our application is a servlet based web application. We have adopted the MVC approach. We found Cacoon over kill, so we implmented our own frame work. Our frame work requires all business components produce XML. We then use XSL:HTML to format HTML output for the browser. It was only a natural next step to use XSL:FO to generate PDF since we already had XML being generated. One of the real blessings of this approach is our clients can customize the look and feel of the application by changing the XSL files without our ever opening a Java source file. It was a BIG investment and learning curve up front to take this approach, but now that we are past that phase, the return on the investment has enabled us to justify the up front expense. Looking back, I think it was a vary sound decission. We are in a position where adding WAP (WML) and a B2b SOAP interface are a natural extension of our framework, not a rewrite. Thank yous go to not only FOP, but Xalan and Xerces for all the XML and XSL support! Jim Urban Product Manager Netsteps Inc. Suite 505E 1 Pierce Pl. Itasca, IL 60143 Voice: (630) 250-3045 x2164 Fax: (630) 250-3046 > > At 08:58 PM 1/29/02 -0500, you wrote: > >I would like to know why FOP enthousiast (I am one) are using FO rather > >than products such as Crystal Reports or other such software (anyone > >Jetfoms ?). Just for the fun of playing with new technology ? > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why do you use FOP instead of ...
At 08:58 PM 1/29/02 -0500, you wrote: >I would like to know why FOP enthousiast (I am one) are using FO rather >than products such as Crystal Reports or other such software (anyone >Jetfoms ?). Just for the fun of playing with new technology ? Good question, here where I work I'm thinking about switching to iText instead http://www.lowagie.com/iText/ It's a much simpler way to generate pdf from Java. The truth is that xsl:fo is a headache to use, very complicated... Roland - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Why do you use FOP instead of ...
Well, it wouldn't be off-topic if you pursued this on the fop-user mailing list. :-) Why do people use XSL-FO? Because they need high-quality printing and the formatting vocabulary described in the XSL 1.0 Recommendation suits those needs, AND the data to be formatted is already represented in XML. That's my minimalist view. :-) Regards, Arved Sandstrom -Original Message- From: Patrick Andries [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: January 29, 2002 9:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Why do you use FOP instead of ... I would like to know why FOP enthousiast (I am one) are using FO rather than products such as Crystal Reports or other such software (anyone Jetfoms ?). Just for the fun of playing with new technology ? Thanks for any hints (in private since this is off-topic) Patrick Andries - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
