Well since you said please and it is a sunny day (at least in LA)...
Roland wrote:
>
> At 11:58 AM 2/1/02 -0800, you wrote:
> >I've attached an XSLT stylesheet that we use to create a PDF version of
> >a clinical trial participant's lab report. It uses some fairly
>
> Can you please send us an
At 11:58 AM 2/1/02 -0800, you wrote:
>I've attached an XSLT stylesheet that we use to create a PDF version of
>a clinical trial participant's lab report. It uses some fairly
Can you please send us an example of the generated pdf file?
---
---
From: Joerg Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 9:08 AM
To: FOP Dev
Subject: RE: Why do you use FOP instead of ...
Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wrong! Look at iText http://www.lowagie.com/iText/ to see how simple their
> examples are. They buil
Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wrong! Look at iText http://www.lowagie.com/iText/ to see how simple their
> examples are. They build a complex table with just a few lines of java
> codes. Try doing the same with the XML/XSLT/XSL:FO approach and I guarantee
> you that the total outcome will be
I've attached an XSLT stylesheet that we use to create a PDF version of
a clinical trial participant's lab report. It uses some fairly
complicated presentation logic that by necessity needs take place in the
last stage of processing. The FO output that it produces is also
somewhat involved, making
At 12:59 PM 2/1/02 -0600, you wrote:
> > 2. XSLT is also kinda complicated to use, at least if you have to do
> > complicated formatting...
>So is any other kind of programming language. The more complex the task,
>the more lines of coded need to achieve the desired results.
Wrong! Look at iTex
Well it is also (after being suggested yesterday).
Ralph LaChance wrote:
>
>
> It does seem a shame that this entire quo vadis thread
> isn't on fop-user
>
> ' Best,
> -Ralph LaChance
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscri
It does seem a shame that this entire quo vadis thread
isn't on fop-user
' Best,
-Ralph LaChance
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 1. XSL:FO is a very complicated and messy language
Given the power of the language, of course its complicated. Just as
Asembler is complicated compared to basic.
> 2. XSLT is also kinda complicated to use, at least if you have to do
> complicated formatting...
So is any other kind of progra
Forgot to say that our fo formatting would be ready in
10 years when we'll have those *good* voice
synthetizer
that are supposed to *print* our fo code according to
the XSL-FO specs. ;)
Fred.
--- Ralph LaChance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a
écrit : > At 04:06 PM 2/1/02 -0200, you wrote:
> >I will nail
Ralph LaChance wrote:
> At 04:06 PM 2/1/02 -0200, you wrote:
>
>> I will nail down the weaknesses of the XML->PDF approach:
>>
>> 1. XSL:FO is a very complicated and messy language
>> 2. XSLT is also kinda complicated to use, at least if you have to do
>> complicated formatting...
>
>
> Someti
Hi Roland,
We had the very same prob cause the xsl that translate
from our XML content to FO went quite messy as we made
all modifications needed to paper export (we're
usually building 50->200 pages in our pdfs, with many
pictures, tables cause it's made of courses contents).
So we made some kin
At 04:06 PM 2/1/02 -0200, you wrote:
>I will nail down the weaknesses of the XML->PDF approach:
>
>1. XSL:FO is a very complicated and messy language
>2. XSLT is also kinda complicated to use, at least if you have to do
>complicated formatting...
Sometimes it seems folks assume that FO is synomo
>
>I will nail down the weaknesses of the XML->PDF approach:
>
>1. XSL:FO is a very complicated and messy language
>2. XSLT is also kinda complicated to use, at least if you have to do
>complicated formatting...
I'm replying to my own email adding that of course I would be glad if
someone can
At 10:32 AM 2/1/02 -0600, you wrote:
>step to use XSL:FO to generate PDF since we already had XML being generated.
>One of the real blessings of this approach is our clients can customize the
>look and feel of the application by changing the XSL files without our ever
>opening a Java source file.
Hi all,
I'm working on an e-learning at a french university.
We adopted fop the very same reason Jim has stated.
But i also use iText as a hack for some special
purposes (re-ordering/re-sizing/watermarking mostly)
I think we also made this choice "for the future" as:
- first, we have a pure xml/
Our application is a servlet based web application. We have adopted the MVC
approach. We found Cacoon over kill, so we implmented our own frame work.
Our frame work requires all business components produce XML. We then use
XSL:HTML to format HTML output for the browser. It was only a natural n
At 08:58 PM 1/29/02 -0500, you wrote:
>I would like to know why FOP enthousiast (I am one) are using FO rather
>than products such as Crystal Reports or other such software (anyone
>Jetfoms ?). Just for the fun of playing with new technology ?
Good question,
here where I work I'm thinking about
Well, it wouldn't be off-topic if you pursued this on the fop-user mailing
list. :-)
Why do people use XSL-FO? Because they need high-quality printing and the
formatting vocabulary described in the XSL 1.0 Recommendation suits those
needs, AND the data to be formatted is already represented in XM
19 matches
Mail list logo