Thorsten Scherler wrote:
El lun, 17-04-2006 a las 23:32 +0100, Ross Gardler escribió:
...
No, I did not test, I just looked at the code. I do not have the time to
test it right now. I'm doing a review of the commit, that's all.
Thanks for the review (the code is from David Eisenberg)
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=394229&view=rev
For anyone else, I reckon it takes 5 minutes to test. Just add to
Even easier should be to cd into the plugin directoy and do "forrest
run". The idea of plugins is that their documentation provides examples
of all featues, these are also used fo testing when building. And there
is no longer any need to deploy the plugins unless you have made a chne
to the code since the last time they were deployed.
However, we understand that sometimes it simply isn't possible to do
this, for example, when tavelling and only having access via a PDA. In
this case a code review is vey welcome.
The transformation to XHTML creates embedded CSS styles in the final
output. Are these carried through to the final output?
http://localhost:8888/helloworld.xml
<document>
<header>
<title>Converted by odt_to_xhtml.xsl</title>
<!--
<meta content="text/html;charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"/>
-->
<style type="text/css">
.T1{
font-weight: bold;
}
</style>
</header>
<body>
<section>
<title/>
<div class="Standard">Hello World</div>
</section>
</body>
</document>
I can't view the helloWold file at present. From the above it looks like
a really simple document. We need to ceate a more complete example, with
multiple sections, tables etc. This is a great stat though.
That is the outcome from the html-to-document.xsl (see above
{lm:transform.html.document}) transformation (last step in the odt
plugin).
>
The dispatcher ignores the <style/> and as well skins from a xdoc, the
answer is *no*, embedded CSS styles in *xdocs* are *not* carried through
to the final output.
OK, that's cool.
My question now is, do you think that we should suppress <style/> in the
{lm:transform.html.document}?
At present there is no point in it being there, it is not used and the
user may be confused by it. Probably best to remove it.
Howeve, in the longer term... this hits on exactly why I asked the
question in the first place. Some time ago I started some experimental
work on the OOo plugin. This would allow some styling in some elements
to pass through. Thus giving the user more felxibility in how they
describe the markup of a document.
Daisy has an HTML cleaner which is highly configuable from external
files. We could extend this to make the whole thing much more
configurable on a per site basis.
Ross
