I believe we're not talking about the same aspect. I'm not saying the having support for parsed PDF in FOP is off-topic. I'm very much for having that as resources allow. I was talking about adopting PDFBox. PDFBox itself is a project big enough to support its own community. Integrating it into FOP would kill its visibility. Integrating it into XML Graphics means stretching the project's mission quite a bit. It would have to be a separate subproject (same level as Batik, FOP and Commons), otherwise its visibility is not good enough. We would hurt PDFBox that way.
If there's enough energy coming from the PDFBox community (not just Ben), we could help it into the ASF as an Incubator project destined for its own TLP. But that's not a decision to be taken lightly. But it would be a cool thing. I simply don't think XML Graphics is the place for PDFBox. On 13.03.2006 10:44:09 Chris Bowditch wrote: > Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > <snip/> > > > * Adopting PDFBox into the ASF is certainly an option if the people > > involved in PDFBox really want that. A full PDF library with parsing and > > rendering support might go beyond the XML Graphics' project boundaries, > > however. It might need to go into a separate project. And that would > > certainly be a big step which would need a lot of energy. > > Jeremias, I'm not sure I agree with this comment. We get a lot of > customers asking for an XSL-FO solution that can include a static PDF as > the last page or similar. RenderX already offers the ability to include > a PDF in a fo:external-graphic. If FOP had the ability to parse a PDF, > then this feature would be a possibility for FOP *g* > > Chris Jeremias Maerki
