You know, given the time spent answering questions about XSL and the XML+XSL
-> XSL-FO front-end ("convenience mechanism") in FOP, I sometimes wonder if
it would be better to rip out that function. Perhaps then folks would
understand better that FOP is fundamentally an XSL-FO -> output format
processor.As to the original comment, I agree with Eric that is is not appropriate to consider an FOP extension to accommodate semantics that apply to the XML+XSL -> XSL-FO 'convenience mapping' mechanism. G. On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Eric Douglas <[email protected]>wrote: > It could handle any format you want to write your input in as long as it > can be translated to FO. If another format is commonly used for > generating FOP input someone would just have to write an input > translator extension. > > FOP doesn't even do anything with XML/XSL. It accepts input as XML/XSL > as a courtesy extension. I wrote a transform with embedded code > starting with data in XML using an XSL to translate it. Then I figured > out how to generate FO and split that out as a separate step. That uses > the javax transformer. That step doesn't use any FOP objects. > > If you think about it, output could be considered extensions also. The > main task of the FOP is to input FO and generate the IF. Once that's > laid out it can take various renderers and generate output so you have a > PDF extension, a PNG extension, a TIFF extension, etc. They don't need > to be in the FOP package. Someone who only wants to create PDFs doesn't > need any classes which create PNGs. If you could break all the > extensions out into subprojects it would make it a few extra steps to > download but it would be simplified into smaller jars which of course > load faster if you don't need them all. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher R. Maden [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 9:44 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: FOP Extension to handle Wiki Syntax > > On 06/14/2011 07:25 AM, kalgon wrote: > > Yes I could transform the XML prior to rendering it to PDF but that > > wouldn't be as nice and clean as an extension which would take care of > > > everything. Moreover, an extension can be reused whereas > > pre-transforming the XML would require a specific XSLT for each XML > > schema... definitely not the way I want to go. > > Except that's how XSL works, and what FOP implements. FOP takes > exactly[*] 1 kind of input: the FO markup in XML defined by the XSL > Recommendations. > > Nearly all FOP users, as well as users of other XSL formatters, > transform their source either with XSLT or some other tool into FO for > presentation to the formatter. > > If FOP supports MediaWiki syntax natively, why not MoinMoin or some > other wiki? Why not HTML, DocBook, DITA, CALS, ...? > > ~Chris > > [*] approximately > -- > Chris Maden, text nerd <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ > "Before I built > a wall I'd ask to know / What I was walling in or out, / And to whom I > was like to give offence." - RF, Mending Wall GnuPG Fingerprint: C6E4 > E2A9 C9F8 71AC 9724 CAA3 19F8 6677 0077 C319 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
