XSLFO is what you get when you combine XSLT with XML. XSLFO is an extension of XSLT and includes XSLT commands. XSLFO is as unrelated to FOP as XSLT when you're talking about it's creation for expected output. If you want only FOP related questions they should be about XSLFO commands and only as far as whether they're supported and whether they're producing the expected output. There is likely a better place for questions about how to generate XSLT or XSLFO which should produce particular output which don't question whether FOP is processing it correctly, and you're welcome to point people to such a place if you don't have an answer or don't feel like answering, though I personally wouldn't mind helping if I do have an answer. I use FOP with XML + XSLT with embedded code. I have had some issues with how FOP works which require looking at the XSLFO, so I actually split the process so I call the Java transform method twice. One passes the XSL on the Transformer create and the XML as input and the output is XSLFO I can write to a file if I need. The second transform uses no XSL and passes the XSLFO as input and the FOP handler on the output. If you don't want to 'misspend' any time answering questions that should include questions about how to write XSLT or XSLFO. Once someone has valid XSLFO and they're not getting the expected output then it's an FOP question.
________________________________ From: Glenn Adams [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:41 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: XSL vs. FOP [was: Re: pagenumbering] Christopher, We may be applying different ontological models here. I label anything having to do with XSL-FO as FO related. I label anything having to do with XSLT as XSL related. For me, FO related != XSL related. In fact, there is no necessary logical connection between the two, except insofar as FO borrows/reuses certain constructs from XSL(T), the only one of which I know of is the number to string conversion properties, which, coincidentally, have to do with the current subject matter: page number generation. In any case, by model, page number properties are FO related, not XSL related. Because FOP supports both XSL(T) [indirectly} and FO, it certainly covers both areas, but as far as I'm concerned the XSL(T) portion of it is a convenience function, unrelated to its core functionality. Given the amount of traffic (mis)spent on issues related to the XSL(T) features of FOP, I often wish it did not support this convenience function. But that's neither here nor there. G. On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Christopher R. Maden <[email protected]> wrote: On 08/30/2011 10:52 AM, Glenn Adams wrote: > actually, this is an FO issue, not XSL, since it is FOP that > generates page numbers via <fo:page-number> XSL encompasses both Formatting Objects (sometimes "XSL-FO") and XSL Tranformations (XSLT). An FO issue *is* an XSL issue. It is FOP that generates page numbers, but what Theresa needed was the FO instruction, which is agnostic about the software that consumes it (whether FOP, RenderX, Antenna House, or anything else). The XSL List (<URL: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list/ >) covers all of XSL, including XSL-FO. We've previously had discussions on this list about allowing XML+XSLT as input to FOP, and the potential user confusion that results as to what FOP actually does. For similar reasons, when I reply to questions here, I try to make it clear what parts are specific to FOP, and which questions are about XML, XSLT, or FO, and orthogonal to FOP's operation specifically. > the correct answer is that you need to use the initial-page-number > property on fo:page-sequence to specify a different starting number > than is generated by "auto"; > > see http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xsl11-20061205/#initial-page-number > and and > http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xsl11-20061205/#fo_page-sequence for > details; Yes, and I apologize for not taking the time to look up the references that Theresa needs. ~Chris [Emotional content notice (since plain text is really bad at communicating this): I want to be very clear that I am not attacking or criticizing Glenn or Theresa. And certainly, I've known Glenn by his work for far too long to accuse him of anything remotely resembling ignorance. I have simply attempted to be somewhat detailed and pedantic here for maximal clarity to everyone who might read this.] -- Chris Maden, text nerd <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ > "The present tendency and drift towards the Police State gives all free Americans pause." - Alabama Supreme Court, 1955 (Pike v. Southern Bell Tel. & Telegraph, 81 So.2d 254) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
