I reviewed again the performance comparison report, in summary:
1. FOP is fastest within the three processors when base 14 fonts or type1 font
are specified.
2. FOP is slowest when characters are in English, TTF font specifed and embed.
3. IF CJK fonts are specifed, FOP is always the slowest.
Performance result of FOP heavily depends on font format.
Best regards,
Tokushige Kobayasahi
reply ro the mail
From:David Tolpin <dvd(_at_)davidashen(_dot_)net>
Dated: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 13:25:52 +0500 (AMST)
Subject: [xsl] Notes on Comparison of XSL FO Renderers
There are other implementations, and they are also worth including into the
list. I would just like to
see correct comparison in speed and feature, not just a batch run on a RenderX
Sample (which cannot be run through
FOP, by the way -- the FASTEST of processors listed - just because it does not
have support for shortands, which, in turn,
are not required for basic conformance).
Sincerely,
David Tolpin
http://davidashen.net/
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Tokushige Kobayashi
Antenna House, Inc.
E-mail koba(_at_)antenna(_dot_)co(_dot_)jp
WWW http://www.antenna.co.jp/
WWW http://www.antennahouse.com/ (English)
TEL +81-3-3234-1361(direct call)
FAX +81-3-3221-9975
Antenna House XSL School
http://www.antenna.co.jp/XML/school/xslday.htm
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list