On 18.02.2008 17:04:52 Max Berger wrote: > Dear Fop Devs, > > i think this was the original intention of a "processing instruction".
That's another possibility, yes. > I > really do not see clearly where fox:fail-on-missing-image would go in > the fo tree. I think an extension property/attribute was meant, not an element. > A PI could mean: From this point on in the whole document. > HOWEVER: If fop currently uses no PIs (I am not sure about this), then > it should be a fox: extension, to make all behavior similar. Indeed, we don't use PIs at the moment. And I'm not sure we should. I wonder how many people know how to work with them. > As for the size: > > - Always use the size given if given. > > Either: > - a 0.0001 x 0.0001 pt empty transparent image OR Would have to be at least 0.001x0.001pt as this is our minimal resolution. ;-) Feels very HTML-like... > - A missing image image, about 1x1 cm: should have a border and a red > "x" (as seen in web browsers, etc.) I think I'd prefer this. It's still a change in FOP's behaviour. But so many people don't read or ignore FOP's log output, visual feedback is probably a good idea. > > On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 07:47 -0800, The Web Maestro wrote: > > That all sounds good. As for the extension vs. Config approach, the > > config could specify the default behavior & users could override it > > via individual fox:image-missing-behavior (or > > fox:fail-on-missing-image or something). If there's no > > @fox:[image-missing-behavior] specified, it'll do the config setting > > or log a warning if nothing specified. > > > > Clay > > mfG > > Max Berger > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > OpenPG ID: E81592BC Print: F489F8759D4132923EC4 BC7E072AB73AE81592BC > For information about me and my work please see http://max.berger.name > Jeremias Maerki
