Re: [xsl] status of FOP, Oct 2006

Subject: Re: [xsl] status of FOP, Oct 2006
From: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mikes@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:56:11 +0900
Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 2006-10-11 19:17 -0400:

> In teaching, we commonly demonstrate a range of XML/XSL applications 
> including commercial applications, but we also run exercises using 
> freely available (open source) software on the Windows platform, both 
> so students can get their hands dirty at the command line (always a 
> good idea) and so they can see that yes, they can do this at home, 
> and without spending big $$$.

I would guess that Renderx might be willing to provide you with
free classroom licenses for XEP, and your students could get free
academic licenses or "personal edition" licenses for their home
use. (Does it really matter for your teaching purposes or for your
students that it be open source?)

I suppose xmlroff probably doesn't meet the available-for-Windows
requirement, but it seems like it'd be wortwhile to at least demo
it for you students and give some background information about it
so that they know it exists. (If you have any students who are
developers, maybe some would take enough interest in xmlroff to
consider contributing to development on it.)

> Which should we install for our students to run from the command 
> line, and why? Or should it be something entirely different, instead 
> or in addition? (As I said, we also show them other tools including 
> commercial tools, so they know that FOP != XSL.)

If they're doing hands-on XSL-FO work exclusively with FOP, it
seems like in spite of what else you may be demo'ing for them,
they're going to walk away with out ever trying and seeing for
themselves that they can generate production-quality output from
an XSL-FO toolchain.

At the very least it might be worthwhile to suggest that they
download XEP on their own at home and try it.


Current Thread