Subject: RE: [xsl] FO Processor choice From: "Kielen, Agnes" <Agnes.Kielen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:21:57 +0100 |
Hi, I'm working with FOP for a customer. These reports are mainly large tables with a bill of materials, very technical. The layout is not that important. It has to be readable, but no turning of text and other fancy graphical things. Performance on the other hand is very important. In this case FOP is the first choice. Cheers, Agnes -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Welch [mailto:AWelch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: dinsdag 3 februari 2004 12:00 To: xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [xsl] FO Processor choice Firstly, I don't want to ask 'which is the best FO processor', so its ok to read on :) Ive recently set about converting a set of xhtml producing stylesheets to produce pdf. Ive learnt a bit of FO, using FOP as the processor. Now I've seen the conformance charts at http://www.antennahouse.com/xslfo/impl-comparison-fo.htm and I can see that FOP only implements about 50% of the 'complete' spec (around 67% of the 'basic' spec). What I would like to know is that enough to use for development? Is there anything missing that rules FOP out as a realistic choice? The others are all really expensive, so if its possible to do a task using FOP - even if its longhand, or requires more work work in xslt - then that's fine. Things like margins, text-transform etc can all be done another way, so is there any need to pay for one of the commercial ones? What do other regular FO developers use? Thanks for any insight andrew XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] FO Processor choice, bry | Thread | RE: [xsl] FO Processor choice, Andrew Welch |
RE: [xsl] Value at position(), SHEIKH Sajjad | Date | [xsl] sum, poppe chris |
Month |