On 09.08.2005 13:57:09 Manuel Mall wrote: > 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.
Thanks! > <snip /> > > > BMP and GIF cause > > > exceptions. > > > > That's not so good. > > > I'll investigate this. Thanks again. > > > 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? Probably not. I've done that recently and forgot to remove that line. > b) tests for e-g and i-f-o: > More test cases have recently been added - anything important > outstanding? Yes. I stopped at the point where I had problems positioning an e-g or an i-f-o on a line. I didn't get the image to fill up the whole height of a line. Probably has to do with line-stacking-strategy. I didn't have time, yet, to investigate more closely. > c) revisit URI resolution and custom image/stream injection: > Is this really important to get 0.9 out of the door? Not for the first release, no. But it is a relatively high priority IMO. > 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? Same as c) > e) Investigate strange behaviour with certain URIs: > I did investigate this and provided a patch related to relative URLs - > anything outstanding? I have yet to look at your patch. I'm still kind of wrapped up in inlines (i.e. I found a problem). Jeremias Maerki