I'm wondering if marying FOP +iText would sacrifice the
-awt -print -ps options.  (Same question for -text, but i'm
personally not interested in that.)

At 10:58 AM 3/13/02, you wrote:
>
>Given what has been said on the mailing lists of FOP and iText, and given
>the current scope of the two projects, I feel reasonably sure that this
>could be a proposal accepted by bot communities.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>  FOP uses iText as a PDF generation library
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>
>This could have greater benefits than a merger and keep intact the strenghts
>that these two projects have (remember AOL+Time Warner? is the result we
>want?).
>
>iText could continue to be an excellent PDF (and RTF AFAIK) generation
>package with a good java API.
>FOP could concentrate on FO2AreaTree and use iText as the last step.
>
>Given the licences, nobody is prohibited to cross-collaborate. iText
>developers can send patches to FOP and viceversa, and be [VOTE]d as usual
>when the time is right.
>FOP can distribute iText jar as it's MPL, and both projects would cross-link
>in a clear way.
>
>AFAIK iText is already able to produce PDF using an XML file. If FOP could
>make a transformation step from FO to this format, we could get this up
>running in a short time.
>And IText can also output to html, which is not bad at all.
>
>What do you think?
>Shall we pull this off?
>
>--
>Nicola Ken Barozzi                   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>             - verba volant, scripta manent -
>    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


         ' Best,
         -Ralph LaChance



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

Reply via email to