I do not know the proprietary tools.
What can I say to you that will convice you?
The power of standards and open-source.
Standards allows interoperability. You do not need to buy
the specs of any closed-source format in order to make a bridge to (let's say) PDF or RTF :-)

Force of the open-source is that improvements in the software
impacts all the users. Apache httpd is the most significative example
(or Linux also).

The third problem is that if everyone migrates to FO, the companies behind those proprietary formats will disappear. If you plan to
use you datas for a long time, it is rather a difficult choice.

At last, using a XML format allows it to get its content from different
sources. For example, a big usage of XSL:FO is for dynamic PDF creation
from various (very) different XML sources.

Patrick Andries wrote:

Before convincing people to use specifically, FOP I would like to convince people that FO is a superior model than traditional model of proprietary solutions (3B2, Compuset) for documents that both FOP and those traditional tools can produce.

In other words, is FO a good strategic directions.

Some questions a bit more precise :

1) What are the advantages of people using XSL-FO as page description language rather than the ones their could be using with proprietary tools ?

2) I understand that everything related with XML (XSLT/XSL-FO) has a modern flavour that few techies can resist, but what are the objectives reasons ?

3) Are they any advantages to FO being integrated with XSLT that the proprietary tools would not have ?


Does somebody know if any of the big software publishing companies are considering XSL-FO support ?

P. Andries

Reply via email to