At 14:27 12/03/02, Keiron Liddle wrote:
> > FOP behaves exactly the same but instead of having its own pdf
> generation code then iText is
> used as a library to generate pdf.
I agree that if anything iText could be considered as a "plugin" for PDF
generation and FOP as an XSL:FO processor whi
That sounds like a good suggestion.
To start with I think we should consider only this:
FOP behaves exactly the same but instead of having its own pdf generation
code then iText is used as a library to generate pdf.
So the questions are:
- is the license useable
- is the api sufficient for FOP
I'm not oposed to integration with FOP but what I fear is that FOP is
essentially a XML project and iText would end up without a usable API to
generate PDF without XML.I don't know if rather than being complementary (in
the cooperative sense) , FOP and iText are too completely different
approaches
