Since the FO in FOP is the same as the FO in XSL-FO and think there will be consensus that FOP will only ingest FO natively. That is my opinion too.

Now, in principle, I have no objection in having a new sub-project under the XMLGraphics umbrella that will convert DITA input to FO output, specially if that leads to an expanded user base for FOP.

On 3/26/14, 7:12 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
On 26/03/2014 2:59 PM, Jan Tosovsky wrote:
On 2014-03-26 Christopher R. Maden wrote:
Although I don’t get a vote, I completely agree with Glenn that DITA
integration into FOP is completely inappropriate.
+1

FOP consumes standardized XSL-FO.

DITA-OT should produce standardized XSL-FO. Period ;-)
It does but FOP does not support all PDF features so some of the things that people can express in DITA's XML can not produce the PDF output that people want/need.

>From my POV it has nothing to do with FOP, it is rather XSLT (or whatever) part.

But I agree FOP could be enhanced to be more conformant to the standard. It requires engaging developers and sponsors.

I would hope that engaging the DITA community that has the need and the resources will get the support for these features. The separation into tool-making and document making communities makes it harder for the tool guys to get funded or staffed.
The document makers don't have the knowhow to fix the tools.
There is a lot of potential locked up in the current situation.
Some ideas appear in this mailing list from time to time.

The DITA community has not been very good at pestering the FOP team to get things fixed. They have tended to accept that FOP is static and can not respond to the needs of the document makers.

Jan






Reply via email to