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

RE: What’s the uptake of FOP 2.1?

From: David Lee <dlee@calldei.com>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 19:59:10 +0000
To: Wendell Piez <wapiez@wendellpiez.com>, Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
CC: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BY2PR08MB064307A04C3958123F23033D7410@BY2PR08MB064.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
On 2 public production web sites I have been involved in they switch from FOP 1.1 to 2.1 
(org.apache.xmlgraphics:fop:2.1)  a few years back 

There were problems with 2.0 rendering some fonts (Japanese I think ) but fixed in 2.1
No xml/xslt/xquery/fop code needed to change only the bare minimum of the java calling code.

The use cases involved producing letters and mailings in 20+ languages, and an assortment of commercial documents. 
All used xquery+fop (not xslt).

To date the only issue I know of is a persistent complaint from gradle about POM relocations for xml-apis -- that library is embedded and referenced all over. I have yet found a conflict-free resolution.  It works though.  

---> warning from gradle resolving fop in conjunction with other dependencies
POM relocation to another version number is not fully supported in Gradle : xml-apis#xml-apis;2.0.2 relocated to xml-apis#xml-apis;1.0.b2.
Please update your dependency to directly use the correct version 'xml-apis#xml-apis;1.0.b2'.
Resolution will only pick dependencies of the relocated element.  Artifacts and other metadata will be ignored.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wendell Piez [mailto:wapiez@wendellpiez.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 3:42 PM
To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Cc: XProc Dev <xproc-dev@w3.org>
Subject: Re: What’s the uptake of FOP 2.1?

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,

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 19:59:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 26 May 2016 19:59:41 UTC