Hi Bertrand,

For the short term I think that (1) would be the thing to do but since 
there won't be a release of FOP for a while there may be no point doing 
anything for the short term.

As for how it will eventually end up working with the rest of fop.
Can you give us a quick rundown of what is involved in creating an rtf 
document from xsl fo. What sort of information is passed from the fo to 
the rtf. How layout is considered etc.

The way that FOP normally converts from fo to the output is by a few 
steps. First the fo is turned into the formatting object tree. This is 
then turned into an area tree. This area tree represents the final layout 
with data that any renderer can handle. The renderer then uses this area 
tree to create the pages.
This means that the renderer knows nothing about the original document and 
does not have a concept of lists, tables etc.
I should also point out that the MIF renderer used references to the 
formatting object tree to determine things ike tables to create tables in 
the output. This sort of thing is being revisited as it causes problems.


On 2001.11.23 13:32 Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> (repost - I think the first one didn't get through)
> Now that the introductions are done, I'd like to initiate the discussion
> about how to actually merge jfor into FOP.
> Currently I have one major code contribution to integrate into the jfor
> code
> base. I expect to be done in a week and would like to release a last
> "non-FOP" version of jfor with these changes.
> Regarding the merging of jfor, I see three options:
> 1) inclusion of the jfor.jar in the FOP distribution, "user-level"
> integration where a -rtf switch of FOP causes jfor to run instead of FOP
> Makes it possible for users to generate RTF + PDF without needing a
> separate
> download. No benefits on the developer side. We might get a lot of
> questions
> like "why is the RTF output so poor compared to PDF".
> 2) same but modify jfor to use the existing FOP infrastructure: startup,
> parser, configuration, logging, etc..
> 3) full integration of jfor as a FOP renderer, taking advantage of the
> analysis of the XSL-FO document.
> IMHO this needs to bypass the layout stage to stay quick and translate as
> much of the document structure as possible to RTF.
> Considering that I won't have much time in the next few weeks, my
> suggestion
> would be to first go ahead with 1) and simultaneously
> studying and discussing how to best reach 2) and 3).
> Any thoughts?
> - Bertrand

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to