- From: Jean Kaplansky <jeankap@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:00:09 -0400
- To: Jeremias Maerki <dev@jeremias-maerki.ch>
- Cc: "public-ppl@w3.org" <public-ppl@w3.org>
+1 on this idea. On Apr 3, 2012, at 4:13 PM, Jeremias Maerki <dev@jeremias-maerki.ch> wrote: > I'm wondering if it would make sense to split up the listing of the > XSL-FO processors in: > - actual XSL-FO processors (Examples: FOP, AntennaHouse, etc.) > - stand-alone XSL-FO editors (which usually bundle one or more XSL-FO > processors) (Examples: Ecrion Designer, XSLfast etc.) > - and integrated (output management) solutions in which XSL-FO > processors are used and which might or might not contain an XSL-FO based > editor. (Examples: Assentis DocBase, Ecrion Rendering Server, > Thunderhead etc.) > > I think that would also make it easier to build tables that compare the > capabilities of various products. It would also be useful to compile a > list products in the HTML/CSS corner which are targeted at print output. > > On 28.03.2012 11:24:44 Tony Graham wrote: >> I've added pages for listing XSL-FO processors: >> >> http://www.w3.org/community/ppl/wiki/XSL-FO_Processors >> >> and publicly-available stylesheets: >> >> http://www.w3.org/community/ppl/wiki/Public_Stylesheets >> >> that we can all extend. >> >> Over time, it would be useful to add information about platforms and >> output formats for the XSL-FO processors, but this list already has one >> more than the original on the XPPL WG page. >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Tony. > > > > > Jeremias Maerki > > >
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 12:19:36 UTC