xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From gerhard.oettl...@ogersoft.at
Subject Re: Drop RTF Support?
Date Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:41:04 GMT
Mark C. Allman schrieb:
> What I do now is the following:
> doc.xml --------------|                                            doc.pdf
>                       |--> XSLT ENGINE --> doc.fo  --> FOP  --> {  doc.rtf
> translator_doc.xsl  --|                                             .....
> Putting something into FOP to generate ODF wouldn't make much sense, 
> IMHO.  I think it'd just be another xslt script to translate the FO file 
> to ODF.  

I investigated in the same area one year ago and came to the conclusion:

1) It is easier to do it direct from XML than to parse a fo-file:
 >>     XML + XSLT-ENGINE —> ODF

 > Or write a plug-in for OpenOffice to read in FO files
 > (obviously another project!).

2) Yes this would be a propper place, but the work is the same:
file.fo --> OpenOffice-import-filter --> file.odf or
file.fo --> FOP --> file.odf sounds very similar
from the point of what has to be done ;-)

 > I use the RTF generation so that I can then convert a few things to MS
 > Word (can't ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room). > I think 
we'll lose users if we don't keep something that lets them
> generate docs that are interoperable with the 800 pound gorilla.  How we 
> do that is the question. 

OpenOffice could be another heavy wight gorilla in this chain:
file.fo --> FOP --> file.odf --> OpenOffice --+--> file.rtf
                                               +--> file.doc
                                               +--> file.pdf

Yes, I have to confess that I think that in some cases (beeing able to 
do small last adjustments with an WYSIWYG tool) this chain would be 
usefull and pdf-generation would be for free. This is not a competition 
for FOP because it has its advantages in interactive usage while FOP has 
its advantages in automated environments without user-interaction.

file.fo --> FOP --> file.rtf has the same benefit and has the advantage 
of an existing implementation but on the long run I think ODF should be 
kept in mind.


View raw message