xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon Pepping <spepp...@leverkruid.eu>
Subject Re: Media or paper tray selection in FOP
Date Fri, 12 May 2006 19:55:57 GMT
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 03:50:01PM +0800, mm@arcus.com.au wrote:
> > Simon Pepping wrote:
> >
> However, I now feel the need to comment from a developers point of view,
> i.e. a developer who uses fop in high volume backend business processes.
> If I would have to deal with creating per document config files that would
> simply be a nightmare. IMO anything that is likely to need configuration
> on a per document basis need to be either with the document (e.g. fo
> extensions) or settable via an API but it should not be required to be in
> a config file.

Configuration in FOP is settable via an API.
> Regarding the dislike of extensions voiced here I am not so concerned with
> XSL-FO purity. In my observations XSL-FO is very rarely used as the raw
> data interchange format. Most enviroments use a combination of custom XML
> inputs and custom XSL stylesheets and the actual fo file is hardly ever
> seen. Just look in the fop-user list - most people submit XML/XSL snippets
> and only after explicit prompting do we get the actual fo.

Many people get their FO files via standard XSLT stylesheets, like the
docbook stylesheets. It is the FO standard that makes them possible,
but they already have renderer specific sections. No need to add more
to those sections.
This discussion is about a topic about which I do not know very much,
viz. printer specific commands in a printer file. Maybe I am making
noise about nothing. But I do not fancy the idea of extension elements
that do not add much desired layout extensions, such as the bookmarks


Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu

View raw message