xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Bowditch <bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com>
Subject Re: Media or paper tray selection in FOP
Date Tue, 09 May 2006 11:35:11 GMT
Jeremias Maerki wrote:

<snip/>

> Conclusion:
> Using the master-name approach instead of including printer-specific
> commands adds flexibility for media and paper tray selection. The only
> thing that will be useful is a parameter to FOP and/or an extension
> value in XSL-FO which specifies the actualy printer that the print job
> is to be generated for so the renderer can use the right set of mapping
> rules.

I'm sorry Jeremias, your arguments here have failed to convince me that 
your suggested approach is the best way. I'm still in favour of using 
extension elements for PS, PCL and AFP. It should be possible to add the 
extension elements into the Intermediate Format XML, as the printer to 
be used may not be known until later in the processing (as you already 
suggested and that bit I agree with)

If the master name to media name mapping is placed in the configuration 
file then there is no means to override it for a single document. After 
all there is only 1 configuration file, and it cannot be changed at 
runtime. Allowing extension elements in the IF XML is the most flexible 
way. Then you don't need to know the printer when working in XSLT and 
FO, but when the IF XML is processed the destination printer should be 
known. (It is in our system anyway :)

As you've already mentioned in PS there is more than one way of 
specifying tray selection. So assuming one particular way (/MediaType) 
would be rather limiting in my opinion and not desirable. Perhaps you 
didn't mean that, but that is my understanding of what you said.

I also think this is a little bit Out of Scope for FOP. FOP should 
provide some means to achieve tray selection via the Extension element 
mechanism, but providing master name to media name mapping in the 
configuration along with making assumptions about the Postscript and PCL 
to be inserted into the output is going a step too far I think.

Chris



Mime
View raw message