I recently went through this exercise.  I evaluated FOP, XEP and
AntennaHouse.  I didn't evaluate PassiveTex.  I started putting together
analysis sheet together of the different products but haven't completed it
yet.  For commercial projects I think both XEP and Antenna House work very
well.  XEP provided more of the functionality we required (internal and
external linking and side navigation bar (extension to FO). Although I
understand that Antenna House will have some of this functionality in the
next release. However, you have to use a XSLT parser to create the FO
file first.  XEP is command-line driven.  Another good feature of XEP and
FOP is that it created the PDF and doesn't require Distiller.  FOP also
has a side-navigation bar extension.

        I liked Antenna Houses graphical user interface for the
development of the XSL-FO.  This is a nice development tool because
you can see the results without creating a PDF file and opening
the Reader to see the results. However, to create a PDF file you
do need Distiller.  I used the evaluation version of Antenna House
recently to print training materials for a training class and I
was very happy with the results.

        I originally created my XSL-FO file to work with XEP. I had
one to change one attribute in the XSL file to get it to work
with Antenna House ("fo:page-sequence master-reference" to
"fo:page-sequence master-name").  I had to do major surgery to
get it to work with FOP because of the unsupported features.

        Bottom line both XEP and Antenna House are good and seem
very stable.  If I get my analysis sheet completed I may post it
if anyone is interested.

        Hope this helps.


On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, GISBERT Aurélien (DSIT-EX) wrote:

> I have to do a comparison between the different existing XSL-Fo processors.
> I focused on these ones:
> -FOP, Apache
> -XEP, RenderX
> -Antenna House XSL Processor
> -PassiveTeX
> Could you give me their "good and bad parts"?
> Who support them?
> What are the aims of each one about the XSL specification?
> Finally, is there any other good XSL-Fo processors?
> I understood that these 4 XSL-Fo processors were all compliant to the basic
> conformance level in the W3C recommendation, and also to some of the objects
> and properties of the extended level.
> I would like to have your opinions. I have to transform an XML document into
> a PDF file, using a specific model of presentation (first page, contents,
> headers, titles, ...)
> Regards
> -----------------------
> Aurelien Gisbert
> Engineer student in the INSA of Lyon, France
> Internee in the SNCF, France (working with Alain Herbuel, in the DSIT-EX
> section)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

Reply via email to