Re: [xsl] Notes on Comparison of XSL FO Renderers

Subject: Re: [xsl] Notes on Comparison of XSL FO Renderers
From: Tokushige Kobayashi <koba@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 08:45:53 +0900
I reviewed again the performance comparison report, in summary:

1. FOP is fastest within the three processors when base 14 fonts or type1 font are specified.
2. FOP is slowest when characters are in English, TTF font specifed and embed.
3. IF CJK fonts are specifed, FOP is always the slowest.

Performance result of FOP heavily depends on font format.

Best regards,

Tokushige Kobayasahi

> reply ro the mail 
> From:David Tolpin <dvd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Dated: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 13:25:52 +0500 (AMST) 
> Subject: [xsl] Notes on Comparison of XSL FO Renderers

There are other implementations, and they are also worth including into the list. I would just like to 
see correct comparison in speed and feature, not just a batch run on a RenderX Sample (which cannot be run through
FOP, by the way -- the FASTEST of processors listed - just because it does not have support for shortands, which, in turn,
are not required for basic conformance).

David Tolpin

 XSL-List info and archive:

Tokushige Kobayashi
Antenna House, Inc.
E-mail koba@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
WWW (English)
TEL    +81-3-3234-1361(direct call)
FAX    +81-3-3221-9975

Antenna House XSL School

 XSL-List info and archive:

Current Thread