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 much
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?
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 example
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
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.
We
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 show
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 synomous
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
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...
Sometimes it seems
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
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 iText
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
