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.


> <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

Reply via email to