W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xproc-dev@w3.org > May 2016

Re: What’s the uptake of FOP 2.1?

From: Wendell Piez <wapiez@wendellpiez.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:42:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAO_-xxR2fS5-ZNE3tUQ1KQ00B2htM0rttyzFZkbSNVZg2gXNw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Hi Norm,

I dunno about the uptake of FOP 2.1 (yet), but can say for myself I
don't and won't use the old FOP any more. Given the choice I would
prefer to see FOP 2.x than 1.x in Calabash.

Any reason why not migrate? Any reasonable chance of XSL that works
okay under 1.x but not under 2.x? (Any reasonable chance of such XSL
that also can't be improved?)

Thanks for asking,
Wendell


On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 7:44 PM, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> If I upgraded the XML Calabash print module so that it supported FOP
> 2.1 *instead of* FOP 1.x, would that inconvenience anyone?
>
> (The APIs are quite different and even assuming I can get 2.1 working,
> I can’t see any easy way to support both from the same module. And I
> really don’t want to have a print-fop-1.x module and a print-fop-2.x
> module, though I suppose I could.)
>
>                                         Be seeing you,
>                                           norm
>
> --
> Norman Walsh
> Lead Engineer
> MarkLogic Corporation
> Phone: +1 512 761 6676
> www.marklogic.com



-- 
Wendell Piez | http://www.wendellpiez.com
XML | XSLT | electronic publishing
Eat Your Vegetables
_____oo_________o_o___ooooo____ooooooo_^
Received on Thursday, 26 May 2016 19:42:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 26 May 2016 19:42:54 UTC