>  Paul Tchistopolskii writes:
>  > 
>  > I suggest to visit 
>  > 
>  > http://www.renderx.com

> There is something about the wording of the RenderX site that
> grates. Perhaps its just the aggressive business speak. Clearly the
> product, whatever it is/will be, is doing a good job so far as they
> have taken it (and that is into areas that eg fop and passivetex have
> not yet gone). But equally,
 
>  a) the product is not available

It is available. It is not available in the form of 
'evaluation version'. If you want to bye it - 
you can. Contact our sales and they'l start 
dancing around you.

There is one easy way to make it even open-source.
If somebody will provide comparable functionality - 
there may be no need to 'close' renderx engine to 
degree it has been closed for now.

Personaly - I like open source. 5 years ago I have 
wrote the open-source  'plugin C++ source code 
browser'. It  is still used by some marginals, 
including me.

Unfortunately, I don't understand too much how 
software development companies are making 
money if giving their software away for free 
and / or open source ( well, I may underestand, 
but  I prefere not to think about marketing too 
much, it results in some strange thoughts 
about  this world.).

Anyway. 

The content on RenderX website should be 
correct. If you can point me to the wrong information 
written anywhere there - I'l appreciate greatly. 

As to the wording - if you send me some particular  
comments  by e-mail, I'l forward your thoughts 
to marketing  and they may change the wording.

They may be not to cool in understunding the 
XML / XSL politics e t.c. maybe there is 
realy something wrong  - I just don't see it.

Maybe I was wrong when pointing somebody 
who has asked about FO's to our 
demonstration ?

Or there is something realy terrible on the 
renderx website except the home page?

Is there realy anything wrong on  www.renderx.com  
that is  worth  discussing it here, in a technical 
mailing-list ?

>  b) there remains much to do 

Yes. As usual and always. I think people who are writing 
HTML browsers *still* have *many*  things to do.  
Don't they?

Even after we'l support 99% of the WD there *still* 
will  be many things to do.   And 'the rest' may take much  
more  than  it'l  take to support  99% of the WD.  

What is the point here ?

> When RenderX's demo page has a really convincing example of table
> formatting, 

Could you please provide the .fo stream to be considered 
"a really convincing example of table formatting"?  Just in case....

By the way, I don't think you picked realy good test
for XSL renderer maturity. If I'l need to  test some 
XSL FO renderer for maturity, I'l use another 'first'
testcase. Not tables. 

> and when I can buy or otherwise acquire a copy of fo2pdf,

Maybe you can right now. Contact our sales. Unfortunately, 
it is not  available to students, for example. There are also 
some other limitations. But basicaly - you  *can* bye it. 

> I'll learn to love the gut-wrenching "We are building a new Netscape
> and it's great fun" talk.

What's wrong again? 

It is a great fun. And we *are* building a new Netscape.  
Unfortunately, Netscape may be a buzzword, but the ( presize) 
meaning is  that it is *not* the *Mosaic*.  Probably we should write 
it this way:

"We are bulding a new Netscape, but not a new Mozaic if 
you know enough to understand the difference".  

By the way. This quote resides in a *very* special place. 
It's the 'Opportunities' page. We are looking for very special 
people and for some reason we are placing very special 
offer.  Yes, it may look strange. I'l not be the first in this 
mailing list saying  that implementing XSL FOs is a 
strange occupation.

I also think that it is almost possible to find strange 
sentences on almost any 'commercial'  website. 

renderx  is mostly  typical 'commercial' website.
The level of bullshit there is not too high, 
comparing with ... hmm...  many other 
'commercial' websites.

And the most interesting thing is - I still don't 
understand what it all has to do with xsl-maling 
list.

> sebastian rahtz
> 
> PS remember the old adage "if their web site is not valid HTML, don't buy
> from them"? Paul, you might want to pass by validator.w3.org :-}

Our .fo streams are  much more valid than it could be, 
because we ignored the W3C XSL WG working draft
and started with our validator. Actualy, I wrote the 
renderx validating script myself in 15 minutes, or so. 
Writing online validators is easy. Using them is also 
easy. Usualy it byes you nothing.

Rgds.Paul.

PS. I tried to understand your letter, but unfortunately  - 
I think that I don't understand it.

Maybe I'm stupid.  

I'l be glad to get your ( private ) explanation 
about what is so wrong with RenderX website that you 
have spend  some of your  time quoting places from 
the 'Opportunities'  page and saying in the public place 
that  RenderX  product is not  available even without  
contacting our sales. 

Or you did ???? 

If you did and sales told  you that you can not 
bye the engine,  I'l like to get more detail on it.

If you actualy asked  about  'playing with the engine' - 
they *should*  reject you. That's OK.




 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list