[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 7:26 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: XSL-FO Engine comparisons
I've been using FOP in production for many months. The catch is that I
don't use it 'live'; I use it to build static PDF documents from XML
docum
I've been using FOP in production for many months. The catch is that I
don't use it 'live'; I use it to build static PDF documents from XML
documentation. I have not personally found FOP to be very crashy with my
input docs, but I would still probably be nervous about using it live in
a servlet ap
At 10:28 PM +0100 7/31/01, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
>Elliotte Rusty Harold writes:
> > The downside to this otherwise excellent engine is that it's Windows
> > only and based on Windows graphics primitives rather than PostScript or
> > PDF. It displays on the screen very nicely, and prints nicely to
> Hmm, after a little hunting around with Google it looks like
> GhostScript might actually do that. I'll have to give it a try.
Yes, I do it this way, I print into virtual postscript printer
and convert resulting .ps to .pdf via ghostview (File/Convert)
Martin
--
Martin Krumpolec <[EMAI
I have used GhostScript for awhile. And it works great for that purpose.
Steve Rybin.
-Original Message-
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 7:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: XSL-FO Engine comparisons
At
2 more cents...
I am using FOP in production.
We have a major problem with performance, but have a working app with
bad performance beats no app. Generating 200 page reports uses GBs of
memory and 3 to 10 minutes of a single CPU on a quad 500 PIII. Our
document is a single table. The heade
At 7:19 PM +0200 7/31/01, Petr Andrs wrote:
>I think there is other reason for formatters beeing not production redy
>as well. This reason is that XSL FO is only in CR state of its first
>version. I think 1.1 or 2.0 XSL FO Recomendation will be far better.
>
I don't think that's it. I haven't
Title: RE: XSL-FO Engine comparisons
Hi,
Though I'd add in my 2c to the debate ;) I've just started evaluating FOP for production use in our company. We have some code documentation in XML format and can use XSLT to create FO, then PDFs and/or HTML - very useful.
I had down
On Wednesday 01 August 2001 09:19, Alistair Hopkins wrote:
> I'm also using it in production to generate simple but nice printable
> invoices from a website. As a precaution, only company staff can access
> the invoice download at the moment, but I'm going to throw it open to the
> punters soon a
On Wednesday 01 August 2001 01:08, Darren Munt wrote:
> > But you're right - nobody should be using the processor in production.
> > Not yet. When we think it's ready we'll say so.
>
> I know we do so at our risk, but we have been using v0.18 FOP in a
> production situation (albeit a low-load, non
t 6 months.
-Original Message-
From: Alex McLintock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 10:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: XSL-FO Engine comparisons
--- Darren Munt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
> But you're right - nobody should be using the process
--- Darren Munt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >
> But you're right - nobody should be using the processor in production. Not
> yet. When we think it's ready we'll say so.
I've been using FOP in production for over six months, nearer twelve.
This is only possibly however because we have a small
Peter B. West writes:
>
> Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> > Sebastina
> Your better half?
all my halves are equally good
sebastian
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sebastian Rahtz wrote:
> Elliotte Rusty Harold writes:
.
> Sebastina
Your better half?
Peter
--
Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://powerup.com.au/~pbwest
"Lord, to whom shall we go?"
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> But you're right - nobody should be using the processor in production. Not
> yet. When we think it's ready we'll say so.
I know we do so at our risk, but we have been using v0.18 FOP in a
production situation (albeit a low-load, non-critical one) for a week now.
Apart from a minor performance
Elliotte Rusty Harold writes:
> that end, I've been putting the various XSL-FO engines on the market
> through their paces.
interesting, thanks for that
> PassiveTeX
...
> quirky instance where the first bullet point in a list was not indented
> quite right, but this didn't seem to occ
At 09:24 AM 7/31/01 -0400, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
[SNIP]
>So far, I've experimented with four different XSL-FO processors: the
>Apache XML Project's FOP, Sebastian Rahtz's PassiveTeX, the Antenna
>House XSL Formatter 1.1E, and RenderX's XEP. Two are implemented in
>Java, one in native Window
Elliotte,
> However, it simply did not work for me at all. However good the XEP
> engine may be at converting XSL-FO documents to PDF, its horrible user
> interface and incomprehensible installation procedure eliminated it from
> my consideration.
Installation package of XEP 2.5 evaluation versi
Hi,
I am now working on reporting tool which outputs reports into XSL FO,
so I have some experinece with tools described here. Althoug we are
using only quite simple formatting I would like to say something to
this topic as well.
On 31 Jul 2001, at 9:24 Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote about XSL-FO E
>I've been spending a lot of time lately with Docbook and XSL-FO as part
>of the ongoing development of my next book, Processing XML with Java. To
>that end, I've been putting the various XSL-FO engines on the market
>through their paces. I'm trying to find one that will actually let me
>produce t
20 matches
Mail list logo
