Web Maestro Clay wrote:
On May 5, 2006, at 8:36 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote:
le 05/05/2006 17:13 Ross Gardler a écrit :
...
It doesn't require that much more work since it will (hopefully)
only be a case of copying over the code from the OOo plugin.
The fact that it creates invalid XDocs is not a huge problem as it
only affects things on the internal side of Forrest and so
validation checks are not an issue (in fact the internal format is
not valid in many other ways too). We can return and address this at
a later date.
David Crossley mentioned in another thread[1], that document-v11.dtd is
similar to document-v13.dtd, except:
====
Why "transform.docv10.docv11"? No problem: docv11
is essentially the same as docv13, some restrictions
were relaxed and every element can have a @class attr.
====
It's not the presences of clas attributes that make it invalid. It is
the fact that the class definitions are placed in the XDoc head. As I
pointed out earlier we are now able to do this a different way, since
locationmaps and plugin sitemaps allow us to intercept the request for
skinconf.xml.
In the dispatcher it will be slightly different (but easier). Are you
using skins or dispatcher? Obviously you will ant a solution that suits
your needs.
In SXW, if I remember rifhtly, T1 was the predefined style called
"Title 1" in the drop down styles list.
That is correct. This file did begin 'life' as an SXW file. I started
the site for a client by copying the files into using OOo and saving
them as SXW files. After getting bitten by the many bugs in OOo's SXW
styling system we opted to create an ODT plugin instead of updating OOo.
I'll have to go through each file and clear formatting, then reapply
bold and italic where necessary.
Should be no need to do that with my approach. Simply allow whatever
styiling you want to pass through. Remember with this appraoch it is
irrevlevant what the style is called, we are using the actual
definitions of styles not the names of styles.
[1]
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.text.xml.forrest.user/3540
p.s. Shouldn't this discussion be happening in JIRA?
No we don't discuss in Jira, it's not a convenient mechanism for free
flowing and threaded discussion. What we need to do now is place short a
summary of the discussionin and a link to the archives in the relevant
issue.
Ross