Re: Q: XML+XSL transforms to a print-ready format

["Paul Tchistopolskii" <paul@xxxxxxx>]

>  > >  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?

> um, whats the relevance of that?

If you have good lists - you have 95% of the functionality 
usualy requested from tables. You have tables even you 
don't  have tables. We already got  about 5 testcases from 
the 'outher space' when people think they need tables - and 
we have rendered those testcases without changing 
a *line* of code in the engine.
 
Once again. The current shape of RenderX rendering engine 
is sufficient  to  start  using it in the production environment.

Sure  -  no purpose at all of  XSL FO renderer that  is not 
supporting lists and/or images.

>  > What is the point here ?
> correct me if I am wrong, but you don't seem to have tackled tables
> yet. to me, thats so crucial I cannot regard a product without it as
> seriously useful. 

And next  day after we'l support tables somebody would clame 
that because it is not supporting 'spacer' tag,  our rendering 
is 'incomplete' ? And after supporting that hypotetical 'spacer' 
tag somebody else will come and say that because rendering 
engine does not  supports 'nice' page numbering in the situation 
when the page has a landscape orientation - it is imcomplete?

The glass is half full ( and it will *never* be full enough - 
like HTML experience shows us). 

If I need to do *anything* with XML rendering - I'l pick *our* 
engine in a shape it has right now,  then I'l start working with 
the vendor ( renderx ) asking for the solutions for some particular 
problems I may  have ( even the WD provides no solutions 
at all ). If my vendor will be honest  with me - we'l make a 
great progress. If my vendor will play a dirty games - I'l never 
win on a long run - would that vendor be big or small.

This is the scemario our marketing is  suggesting and this 
scenario is acceptable for some of our clients. 

Actualy, I see nothing wrong  here. I was working in some 
different companies in different countries and most of 
them were using this or very similiar model.

>  > Could you please provide the .fo stream to be considered 
>  > "a really convincing example of table formatting"?  Just in case....
>  > 
> no, sorry, I don't have any good examples to hand. i am sure others
> do. Norm Walsh's Docbook test documents have some reasonable things

Many thanks for the reference. From the end of August, 
we prefer to work with the materials we are taking from the 
'outher space' rather  than writing our own complex 
testcases. So far we have no significant problems with 
those materials. 

Next update of www.renderx.com may show it better.

>  > > 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.

> er, why ever not??? why would you NOT sell to me on the basis of my
> profession?? (not that I am a student)

It's the question for our marketing. Unfortunately I have 
nothing to do with it - I'm a developer.

Actualy, I see nothing wrong  here. I was working in 
different companies in different countries and most of 
them were using this or very similiar model.

>  > "We are bulding a new Netscape, but not a new Mozaic if 
>  > you know enough to understand the difference".  
> 
> you are building a new web browser? i would not have guessed it from
> the web site. 

As I told before - the text is from the 'Opportunities' page. 
It is kind of professional test. 

The renderx project is just 10% of what we are realy doing.

At the moment we have about 3 know-hows and only one 
of them is in the rendering part. However, if you'l read carefully 
the information on our website, and if you are superb developer 
with 10+ years of intencive software development experience, 
who have participated in about  10 commercial projects  
( like the rest of our team is ) you may figure out the rest, 
say 70% of the whole picture. 

Those who can - are welcome to the core team of renderx.
Those who can not  - will join us after the first round, when 
we'l have everything in place, including detailed explanations 
e t.c. 

I don't think we are doing it wrong.  
I think we are doing it right.
 
>  > > 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, 

> i am talking about the HTML of your Web site itself, not your .fos,
> which are of course excellent

And I'm answering that our HTML may be 'incorrect',  because 
it does not realy matter.

Unfortunately,  .fo-s were also not exellent - shame on me 
who have not  invoked our own validating service on the example 
we have published there for 2 months.  

Thanks to Steve, who pointed us to particular problems with our 
columns.fo.  We have it fixed, because he was having particular 
problems. 

What particular problem do you have with our  HTML pages ?
What browser are you using?

Rgds.Paul.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 paul@xxxxxxxxx   www.renderx.com   www.pault.com
 XMLTube * Perl/JavaConnector * PerlApplicationServer
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=



 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list