RE: [xsl] FO Processor choice

Subject: RE: [xsl] FO Processor choice
From: "Kielen, Agnes" <Agnes.Kielen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 12:21:57 +0100
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.


-----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 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


 XSL-List info and archive:

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread