It surely makes sense to have (in the end) one library. For the moment the situation is the following: We have looked at several solutions for generating PDF and RTF documents. For PDF, xsl-fo is as good as iText. But (unfortunately) my customers prefer and want a MS Word editable document, so I had to switch to RTF format. We ran into big problems generating RTF with FOP. It just did not look acceptable (no headers/footer, ...). iText is much better for RTF than FOP . I even say that - though still experimental - iText is at the moment the best open source solution for generating RTF. We have spent mandays to find this out, believe me...
When we finally switched to iText, we unfortunately had to throw away all out xsl-fo stylesheets we have used up to then and build a xml parser feeding iText. Not a big matter, but at that point of time I would have wished that FOP had the RTF capabilities of iText. I want to encourage all iText developers to continue the way they do now. They really do a great job. Of course it is up to them to decide whether they want to merge with Apache's XML-FOP project. This would probably be "the" solution... I encourage it. New, Cecil (GEAE) wrote: >We now have html, pdf, and RTF writers for iText... has anyone considered >doing an XSL:FO writer? > >In a twisted sort of way, it makes sense and would bring together the two >main (IMHO) PDF tools today (iText and Apache's XML-FOP project). > >It would allow easy expansion of iText to many other rendering possiblities. >The FOP project supports AWT, PCL, PostScript, SVG, "print" (don't what that >one means), MIF, and TXT. > >Thoughts anyone? > >_______________________________________________ >iText-questions mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/itext-questions > > _______________________________________________ iText-questions mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/itext-questions
