Clay, On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 02:39 am, The Web Maestro wrote: > Manuel, > > First of all, thanks loads for helping out with this! > > On Jul 30, 2005, at 11:32 PM, Manuel Mall wrote: ... > > We currently use Forrest 0.6. Forrest 0.7 was recently released, and it > was on my personal ToDo list to convert to 0.7. > I am using 0.7 and there was no conversion required. I could try to take the pelt skin and to modify it to address the HTML 4.01 compatibility issues. However, I am not sure if that would be time well spent. > > > Another observation: FOP being a project under the XML family > > shouldn't we > > have an XHTML compliant site? I am guessing that this is a Forrest > > skin issue > > as well? > > That would be great. I believe that 0.7 brings Forrest closer to that > XHTML reality. In order to make the site XHTML compliant, we may have > to convert the site to either forrest 0.7 or 0.8-dev (not yet > released). > There is no effort involved in converting the site to 0.7. I just seems to work. Making it XHTML would probably involve even more skin and possibly XSLT tweaking. Again, may be thats better left to the Forrest team?
> > Last observation: The compliance page (table columns) looks ugly under > > Firefox. Its fine under IE 6, Opera, Konqueror. The problem is the > > right > > floating background image under external links which Firefox seems to > > ignore > > when calculating cell widths causing cells to overflow into their > > neighbours. > > Not sure what we can do about that its just a bit sad if our site > > looks bad > > under the most popular open source browser. > > True. The Compliance page is actually an 'ihtml' page. I used this, > because Forrest had significant difficulties with the FOP Compliance > page. I essentially created an HTML page, and then passed it through > Forrest unmodified. > I seems originally the compliance page was created using some XSLT transformations (see src/documentation/resources/stylesheets). Has this approach been abandoned? I can't find the input file. > > Back to the compliance page. I assume what is required is some > > indication of > > 1.0dev compliance vs 0.20.5 compliance. To achieve that we could: > > a) Add extra columns, eg. > > Support (0.20.5) | Support (1.0dev) > > Basic | Extended | Complete | Basic | Extended | Complete > > That is what I originally proposed, and is what I believe makes the > most sense. Doing it this way seems like it'd be the easiest to > separate and compare the differences between 0.20.5 support & 1.0dev > support. > BTW, why do we have the 3 columns Basic | Extended | Complete? Every row will only have one cell out of those 3 filled out. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a single column called Compliance or Core with the values Basic, Extended or Complete? That would save valuable screen space and give us room to add columns for each release. We probably also need the comments labelled with the release identifier so its obvious where they apply to. ... > > BTW, one other option is to convert this page to a OpenOffice.org > Writer format. Forrest has a plugin which converts OpenOffice.org > Writer documents to Forrest HTML/XHTML documents. It's very nifty, and > works fairly well. > Interesting suggestion. > > Manuel > > Thanks again, Manuel! > > Regards, > > Web Maestro Clay
