I presume you are referring to the features defined at [1]. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/#d0e13293
The answer to question is NO, there is no activity (of which I'm aware) to implement the features defined in XSL-FO 1.1 Section 6.10. It would be useful for you to file a bug [2], with severity 'enhancement', that requests the specific features from 6.10 that you need. [2] https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi It would also be useful for Siemens to identify or provide resources to perform this implementation activity. Most work on FOP these days is (informally) sponsored by a variety of commercial activities that make use of FOP. Regards, Glenn On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Hintz, David <[email protected]>wrote: > We use Apache FOP 1.0 for writer drafts only. The main (possibly only) > feature preventing us from using it for production (customer deliverables) > is the lack of indexing support. Consequently, we use an expensive PDF > generation tool for customer deliverables. Any chance that indexing will > be supported in FOP 1.1?**** > > ** ** > > Dave Hintz**** > > Siemens**** > > * * > > *From:* Glenn Adams [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Monday, May 21, 2012 7:49 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: Information about Apache FOP**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Warren Young <[email protected]> wrote:* > *** > > On 5/21/2012 8:04 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:**** > > > (1) a new revision, FOP 1.1, is being prepared for release,**** > > ** ** > > Yay!**** > > ** ** > > which will contain, in addition to bug fixes:**** > > ** ** > > Do "bug fixes" include improvements to XSL-FO compliance? I don't see any > change between the 1.0 and development columns in this table: > > https://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/compliance.html**** > > ** ** > > there have been a few additions for XSL-FO compliance; the table will be > fully updated before a release; **** > > **** > > Is that table out of date, or is 1.1 going to implement no more of the > spec than 1.0 does?**** > > ** ** > > do you have any specific features you're interested in?**** >
