On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 06:21 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > On 09.08.2005 11:55:55 Manuel Mall wrote: <snip /> > > PNG and TIF seem to be working although they are shown at a > > different size than the original JPEG. > > Please check that the DPI/resolution settings in the different > versions of the file are not different and if they are evaluated by > the analyzer at all. I'll investigate this.
<snip /> > > BMP and GIF cause > > exceptions. > > That's not so good. > I'll investigate this. > > Is this something worthwhile to further investigate or are these > > known issues not considered important at the moment? > > I consider this relatively important. There are certain problems in > image handling ATM. Some things to keep in mind: > - images may be highly renderer-dependant (PDF can directly embed > JPEG and EPS, PostScript, too, Java2D cannot etc. etc.) > - It's important to note what kind of image library you have present > (none, JAI, JIMI). There is some overlap in what which library > supports which image format and which gets priority in which case. > :-) - Again, the Wiki task list contains hints that there are certain > things to be done (look for "graphics" under "Layout of"): > http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/FOPProjectTasks > I did check the WIKI for graphics items - here is my assessment - comments more that welcome: a) borders on e-g and i-f-o: There are test cases for this and they appear to work - anything outstanding? b) tests for e-g and i-f-o: More test cases have recently been added - anything important outstanding? c) revisit URI resolution and custom image/stream injection: Is this really important to get 0.9 out of the door? d) Make image providers pluggable and priorities per image format, not per provider. Is this really important to get 0.9 out of the door? e) Investigate strange behaviour with certain URIs: I did investigate this and provided a patch related to relative URLs - anything outstanding? Manuel > > Jeremias Maerki