On 02.08.2005 03:18:44 Manuel Mall wrote: > Gentlemen, > > can we agree on the following? > > 1. The compliance page must be able to handle multiple FOP versions.
Two, at most. > 2. Which versions are shown at any point in time and how they are called > will be decided on a case by case basis. Currently we are talking only > about the last official release (0.20.5) and the current work in > progress (1.0dev, 0.9pr, ...) but down the track versions may be added > or removed at a frequency we don't know yet. VERY low frequency. As Chris said, don't worry about that too much. > From my perspective, as I have put my hand up to do this, this raises > two issues. > > a) What is the appropriate visual design for the compliance page to > achieve 1.? > Two proposals have been made: > i) Maintain the current 3 column layout of > <Version> > Basic | Extended | Complete > and replicate > <Version 1> <Version 2> > Basic | Extended | Complete | Basic | Extended | Complete > This solution allows to quickly see by scanning down a column if a > particular version is conformant at a particular level. However, it > doesn't scale very well. Even with two versions only it will be very > "squished" on the screen. Adding more than 2 will most likely be > looking fairly awkward. > > ii) Change the layout to a single column per version and indicate in a > single separate column at which conformance level a particular FO > object or property "lives" (For a sample see the XSL-FO Object Support > Table at http://www.arcus.com.au/fop/compliance.html). This solution > scales better as it is more compact but it is harder to see if a > particular version is conformant at a particular level. ii) should be good enough for now. > b) What is the appropriate technical solution to achieve 2.? > i) Manually edit the HTML > ii) Use some WYSIWYG tool which can produce Forrest compliant output > (OpenOffice was suggested) > iii) Revive the generation of the page from XML input (does someone have > the original compliance.xml file - I can't find it in SVN?) Go for i). No need to waste too much time. Obviously, iii) would be ideal as we'd have a separation of content and presentation but if it's not easily done, don't do it. > I am happy to investigate and implement (if needed) the technical > solution but I would like to get FOP committer feedback on the look & > feel of the page as this is part of the projects public face. Jeremias Maerki
