That's a big yes from me as well.
Cheers
Tim
-Original Message-
From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 May 2002 15:50
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why is FO(P) a superior model than what most proprietary
tools propose
Patrick,
If I read you
On Monday 29 April 2002 13:51, you wrote:
Thank you for all these good ideas. Would anyone happen to know of an
industry analyst study on the advantages of XSL FO ?
This is to lend some credibility to my recommendation.
Well, Gates and his minions are squealing like stuck pigs. Where
there's
On Monday 29 April 2002 13:51, someone wrote:
Thank you for all these good ideas. Would anyone happen to know of an
industry analyst study on the advantages of XSL FO ?
This is to lend some credibility to my recommendation.
At 05:18 30/04/2002, John Austin wrote:
All of those Open Source
Patrick Andries wrote:
Alex McLintock wrote:
I don't know about an industry analysts study of XSL:FO but we ought
to be able to come up with case studies for people who have
successfully used FOP.
I think this is crucial. I found nothing of the sort.
There was recently an announcement on the
We are considering using FOP in place of JReports or any other reporting
tools. More needs to be written on how to use Cocoon and FOP as a true
report writer. Any help would be great. I'm currently working with Corda
in hopes that they will change the SVG format to inlining so that it can
be
Before convincing people to use specifically, FOP I would like to
convince people that FO is a superior model than traditional model of
proprietary solutions (3B2, Compuset) for documents that both FOP and
those traditional tools can produce.
In other words, is FO a good strategic directions.
I do not know the proprietary tools.
What can I say to you that will convice you?
The power of standards and open-source.
Standards allows interoperability. You do not need to buy
the specs of any closed-source format in order to make a bridge to
(let's say) PDF or RTF :-)
Force of the
From: Patrick Andries [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Why is FO(P) a superior model than what most proprietary tools
propose
2) I understand that everything related with XML (XSLT/XSL-FO) has a modern
flavour that few techies can resist, but what are the objectives reasons ?
3) Are they any
Hi Fop-users
I do agree that XML data offer interoperability and many many high feature
regarding to data tranform and sync and exchange. XSL FO is really a nice
solution because it helps to build paginated presentation layers that longs
for a long time.
But I would like to say that FO and
L Rutker wrote:
From: Patrick Andries [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Why is FO(P) a superior model than what most proprietary
tools propose
2) I understand that everything related with XML (XSLT/XSL-FO) has a
modern flavour that few techies can resist, but what are the
objectives reasons ?
3
-
Von: Patrick Andries [EMAIL PROTECTED]
An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Datum: Montag, 29. April 2002 18:05
Betreff: Re: Why is FO(P) a superior model than what most proprietary tools
propose
L Rutker wrote:
From: Patrick Andries [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Why is FO(P) a superior
At 17:03 29/04/2002, you wrote:
Consider that once you data is in XML you can use that same data to
produce PDF, HTML VoiceML (for you automated telephone system) or SVG
graphical representation of the data by just changing the stylesheet
using XSLT. No need to have multiple unsynced data
Alex McLintock wrote:
Isn't this the virtue of XSLT rather than XSL FO ?
XSL:FO *is* XSLT !
One is part of the other and not totally separate!
Alex
Hello,
Although I am not a guru of XSL*, I would dare to argue with that. In
fact, XSL consists of three technologies - XSLT, XPath and XSL:FO. You
Thank you for all these good ideas. Would anyone happen to know of an
industry analyst study on the advantages of XSL FO ?
This is to lend some credibility to my recommendation.
14 matches
Mail list logo
