Subject: Re: XML+XSL transforms to a print-ready format From: "Paul Tchistopolskii" <paul@xxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 04:47:32 -0700 |
> Paul Tchistopolskii writes: > > > > I suggest to visit > > > > http://www.renderx.com > There is something about the wording of the RenderX site that > grates. Perhaps its just the aggressive business speak. Clearly the > product, whatever it is/will be, is doing a good job so far as they > have taken it (and that is into areas that eg fop and passivetex have > not yet gone). But equally, > a) the product is not available It is available. It is not available in the form of 'evaluation version'. If you want to bye it - you can. Contact our sales and they'l start dancing around you. There is one easy way to make it even open-source. If somebody will provide comparable functionality - there may be no need to 'close' renderx engine to degree it has been closed for now. Personaly - I like open source. 5 years ago I have wrote the open-source 'plugin C++ source code browser'. It is still used by some marginals, including me. Unfortunately, I don't understand too much how software development companies are making money if giving their software away for free and / or open source ( well, I may underestand, but I prefere not to think about marketing too much, it results in some strange thoughts about this world.). Anyway. The content on RenderX website should be correct. If you can point me to the wrong information written anywhere there - I'l appreciate greatly. As to the wording - if you send me some particular comments by e-mail, I'l forward your thoughts to marketing and they may change the wording. They may be not to cool in understunding the XML / XSL politics e t.c. maybe there is realy something wrong - I just don't see it. Maybe I was wrong when pointing somebody who has asked about FO's to our demonstration ? Or there is something realy terrible on the renderx website except the home page? Is there realy anything wrong on www.renderx.com that is worth discussing it here, in a technical mailing-list ? > b) there remains much to do Yes. As usual and always. I think people who are writing HTML browsers *still* have *many* things to do. Don't they? Even after we'l support 99% of the WD there *still* will be many things to do. And 'the rest' may take much more than it'l take to support 99% of the WD. What is the point here ? > When RenderX's demo page has a really convincing example of table > formatting, Could you please provide the .fo stream to be considered "a really convincing example of table formatting"? Just in case.... By the way, I don't think you picked realy good test for XSL renderer maturity. If I'l need to test some XSL FO renderer for maturity, I'l use another 'first' testcase. Not tables. > and when I can buy or otherwise acquire a copy of fo2pdf, Maybe you can right now. Contact our sales. Unfortunately, it is not available to students, for example. There are also some other limitations. But basicaly - you *can* bye it. > I'll learn to love the gut-wrenching "We are building a new Netscape > and it's great fun" talk. What's wrong again? It is a great fun. And we *are* building a new Netscape. Unfortunately, Netscape may be a buzzword, but the ( presize) meaning is that it is *not* the *Mosaic*. Probably we should write it this way: "We are bulding a new Netscape, but not a new Mozaic if you know enough to understand the difference". By the way. This quote resides in a *very* special place. It's the 'Opportunities' page. We are looking for very special people and for some reason we are placing very special offer. Yes, it may look strange. I'l not be the first in this mailing list saying that implementing XSL FOs is a strange occupation. I also think that it is almost possible to find strange sentences on almost any 'commercial' website. renderx is mostly typical 'commercial' website. The level of bullshit there is not too high, comparing with ... hmm... many other 'commercial' websites. And the most interesting thing is - I still don't understand what it all has to do with xsl-maling list. > sebastian rahtz > > PS remember the old adage "if their web site is not valid HTML, don't buy > from them"? Paul, you might want to pass by validator.w3.org :-} Our .fo streams are much more valid than it could be, because we ignored the W3C XSL WG working draft and started with our validator. Actualy, I wrote the renderx validating script myself in 15 minutes, or so. Writing online validators is easy. Using them is also easy. Usualy it byes you nothing. Rgds.Paul. PS. I tried to understand your letter, but unfortunately - I think that I don't understand it. Maybe I'm stupid. I'l be glad to get your ( private ) explanation about what is so wrong with RenderX website that you have spend some of your time quoting places from the 'Opportunities' page and saying in the public place that RenderX product is not available even without contacting our sales. Or you did ???? If you did and sales told you that you can not bye the engine, I'l like to get more detail on it. If you actualy asked about 'playing with the engine' - they *should* reject you. That's OK. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XML+XSL transforms to a print-r, Sebastian Rahtz | Thread | Re: XML+XSL transforms to a print-r, Sebastian Rahtz |
Re: Abbreviated syntax, David Carlisle | Date | Simple question - links, Anthony . Behan |
Month |