Re: ANN: Evaluation Version of RenderX XSL FO Formatter

Subject: Re: ANN: Evaluation Version of RenderX XSL FO Formatter
From: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 14:23:32 +0100 (BST)
Nikolai Grigoriev writes:
 > FOP does not do any draft. You cannot include SVG directly into the code and
 > pretend to be conformant to something.

Yes, you can. FOP implements the fo: namespace as per spec (well, it
doesnt, but conceptually), and implements the svg: namespace
separately. Nothing illegal in that, surely? Similarly, passivetex
renders things in the MathML namespace as well as the FO
namespace. No-one said this had to work with a DTD.

 > As far as tests are concerned, I don't see any desire from other test
 > writers to share the results of their work.

and I dont see any attempt to hide it, either

 >  Where is the FOP test suite published?
its building up, and its a frequent topic on the FOP developers
list. the fact that it isnt `published' is just because the developers
are busy hack^H^H^H^Hwriting code.

 >  How many other systematic test suites are available over the Net?

none. I certainly would not call my tests systematic! thats what I
badly want to test my code against yours, because you have good test
files. as it stands, I cannot check your test files because they are
in a different namespace

 > Frankly speaking, I expected that our testing effort would be supported by
 > others, so as to produce a common full-fledged conformance test suite.
maybe when the spec is complete?

 > BTW: did your initiative to run a performance comparison give some results?

of XSLT processors? or XSLFO processors? we cannot even start the
latter until we have 2 products implementing the same language; as for
the former, its frankly depressing.


 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread