XSL-FO 与经典技术的比较
我最近开始尝试 XSL-FO；它似乎得到了很好的支持，所有 XSL-FO 供应商都非常有帮助，而且您可以用很少（或没有）的钱开始。
我的公司在 90 年代购买了一台重型（每分钟 40k 页）IBM 打印机，但它的软件现在已经相当过时了。
XSL-FO 看起来很有前途，但我想知道较旧的、完善的技术是否可能更好。构建此类软件的 ISIS Papyrus 首席架构师认为 XSL-FO 只是一个 营销宣传。
I have recently started to experiment with XSL-FO; It seems well supported, all XSL-FO vendors are very helpful, and you can start with little (or no) money.
My company bought a heavy duty (40k pages per minute) IBM printer back in the 90's but its software is now quite obsolete.
XSL-FO looks promising, but I am wondering if older, well established technologies may be better. The Chief Architect of ISIS Papyrus which builds such software, believes that XSL-FO is just a marketing pitch.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（4）
较新的、基于 XML 的出版业正在真正腾飞。仅仅将 XML 视为效率低下且存在“固有问题”就表明缺乏对客户真正需求的理解：不锁定于特定供应商的开放技术。
XSL-FO，就像XHTML、XSLT、SVG等公共标准一样可能并不完美，并且可能不具备传统技术和文件格式所拥有的一切。
但实现这些标准的软件解决方案更便宜、更容易集成且可互换。与实施专有技术相比，您可以更轻松地从一种实施方式切换到另一种实施方式。
80 年代的软件提供商讨厌开放标准是可以理解的，因为它们提供了公平的竞争环境。 Adobe 在明显无法控制该标准后停止了对 SVG 的支持； ISIS Papyrus可以支持 XSL-FO，但他们选择不，因为他们将被迫与其他人平等竞争。
Newer, XML based publishing is really taking off. Just dismissing XML as inefficient and with "inherent problems" shows a lack of understanding what customers really want: open technologies that are not locked to a specific vendor.
XSL-FO, just like XHTML, XSLT, SVG and other public standards may not be perfect, and may not have all the traditional technologies and file formats have.
But software solutions that implement these standards are cheaper, easier to integrate, and interchangeable. You can switch from one implementation to another much easier than implementing a proprietary technology.
It's understandable why the software providers of the 80's hate open standards - is because they level the playing field. Adobe stopped supporting SVG after it become obvious that they cannot control the standard; ISIS Papyrus could support XSL-FO, but they choose not to because they will be forced to compete on equal foot with everybody else.
XSL-FO 仅作为创建 PDF 的工具并没有真正的用处。
但是，正如我们在几个场景中所遇到的那样，如果您已经有一个可处理 XML 结构化文档和信息的应用程序，并且需要生成 PDF 文件，那么 XSL-FO 是实现此目的的一个非常好的方法。
在这种情况下，您可能已经有一些具有 XML 和 XSL 知识的开发人员，对于他们来说，设置生成可由生成器解析的 XSL-FO 结构的模板并不是什么大问题。
与所有技术决策一样，使用什么取决于环境和您拥有的资源。尽管我们可以使用 java 做更多很酷的事情，但我们仍然在 SAP ABAP 中做很多工作。但如果您手头有大型 ABAP 程序员团队，那么这是首选。我想这里也一样。
马丁
XSL-FO as just a tool for creating PDF is not really usefull.
But, as we have in several scenarios, if you already have an application that works with XML structured documents and information, and have a requirement to generate PDF files, then XSL-FO is a very good way to achieve this.
In that case you probably have already some developers with XML and XSL knowledge, for whom it is not a big deal to set up templates that generate the XSL-FO structure that can be parsed by a generator.
As with all technology decisions, what to use depends on the environment and the resources you have. We still do a lot of work in SAP ABAP, even though we could do much more cool stuff with java. But if you have big teams of ABAP programmers at hand, that is the first choice. Same here I think.
Martijn
XSL-FO 不仅仅可以用于创建 PDF 文档。
它是分页内容的丰富数据模型。 XSL-FO 可以翻译成各种其他格式，例如 HTML、RTF 、WordML、DocBook 等。
投入时间创建一种（开放标准）格式，并且能够从该一种文档模型转换/呈现各种其他格式是一大好处。它可以减少开发时间/精力并确保各种输出文件的一致性。
XSL-FO can be used for more than just creating PDF documents.
It is a rich data model for paginated content. XSL-FO can be translated into various other formats, such as HTML, RTF, WordML, DocBook, etc.
Investing the time to create one (open standard) format with the ability to transform/render a variety of other formats from that one document model is a big benefit. It can reduce development time/effort and ensure that the variety of output files are consistent.
今天主要是“XSL-FO 与 CSS 的比较”
CSS 是一种“经典技术”，因为 CSS1 是 1996 年的（！）而 CSS2.0 是 1998 年的标准...不经典的是 CSS 采用，以及软件公司对供应文档合成市场的关注拥有良好的 CSS 解决方案。
今天我们可以使用“CSS+XHTML to PDF”或者“CSS+XML to PDF”技术，看这里为什么使用XSL-FO而不是CSS2，用于将 HTML 转换为良好的 PDF？
问题和答案。
分页内容可以由 CSS 生成，不久的将来另一个问题将是
“为什么是 PDF？”
电子书不需要 PDF，他们成功地使用了 EPUB 格式，使用直接的“CSS+XHTML”查看器。
Today, the main is "XSL-FO compared to CSS"
CSS is a "classical technology" because CSS1 is from 1996 (!) and CSS2.0 is a 1998 standard... What is not classic is the CSS adoption, and the attention of the software houses to supply the document composition market with a good CSS solutions.
Today we can use "CSS+XHTML to PDF" or "CSS+XML to PDF" technologies, see here Why use XSL-FO instead of CSS2, for transform HTML into good PDF?
question and answers.
Paginated content can be generated by CSS, and at near future another question will be
"Why PDF?"
E-books not need PDF, they are using with sucess the EPUB format, that use a direct "CSS+XHTML" viewer.