Re: ANN: Evaluation Version of RenderX XSL FO Formatter

Nikolai Grigoriev writes:

 > It depends on the perspective you choose. Many people admit the
 > quality of our
 > renderer but still choose FOP for their pilot projects; giving them
 > a possibility to try our product instead of FOP 

as it stands at present, the eager punter cannot compare the 3
available products, because their test files are mutually incompatible:

 - XEP does April 1999, pretty well
 - FOP does a mixture of drafts, quite well
 - PassiveTeX does only March 2000, not bad in some respects

so someone evaluating XSL FO is going to be deeply unimpressed by the
whole shebang, and probably enter the Hell of CSS.


 > Another excuse is that in most cases, XSL FOs can be converted from
 > the old to
 > the new draft by means of an XSLT stylesheet (which I intend to publish when
 > appropriate); so the switch between the two shouldn't be traumatic.

have you got that stylesheet written and tested? you sure it is that easy?

 > c) RenderX releases a conformant version, before any real problems
 > accumulate; in a meanwhile, XSLT community gets some awareness of
 > XSL FOs, learns writing stylesheets and starts demanding more
 > functionality ;-).

speaking for myself, writing stylesheets to transform to XSL FO is a
horrible game, which I have no desire to redo. I just went through a
painful process upgrading my materials to March 2000 (as one
might...), and I don't want to *downgrade* them.

 > been checked to reflect its current state yesterday. There should
 > be enough
 > documentation to start experimenting with XEP; if you disagree,
 > please let me know).

yes, the new arrival on the scene can experiment with XEP. they have
to read the April 1999 spec, so they learn XSL FO from that. they find
problems, they report them, and find lo! the current spec has changed
things quite a lot....

ah well, we will see. I just hope the XSL FO group finish the spec soon...

sebastian


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