> From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>The second question is: if anybody already tried this > serializer? Does it > >>solve the problems with graphics and tables that happen with FOP? > > > > > > It should... I have heard that iText is much faster and > comes with much more > > features. you might want to have a look at their website. > > Ahem, actually it hasn't "much more features", just different ones. > The XML is basically some XMLified PDF, and if you know PostScript > you know what this means. You can place everything everywhere, but > this also means you have a lot of low-level work to do yourself > which FOP would do for you. And, I'm not aware that iText does > hyphenation and such higher-level tasks.
Don't both FOP and iText implement the same specification? Why would there be difference in functionality? > IText is a great tool if you want to reproduce a complex form > with few text and a lot of boxes which must be placed at certain > positions anyway, or if you have to write a report which is a > 300page table with customer names and sales figures. It is less > suited for PDFing software manuals. Ok. I just need a very simple page with a logo. And I know that there were problems with FOP and graphics (e.g. take a look at the Forrest's Primer: http://www.krysalis.org/forrest/primer.html and compare it with its PDF version). The speed and advanced features doesn't matter for me. So, to rephrase the question: would I have less problems with images if I use iText instead of FOP? Thanks for your answers. Konstantin > > J.Pietschmann > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
