Hi, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > 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.
Adrian made the suggestion some time ago of using the fo:declarations element to override configuration on a per-document basis: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/xmlgraphics-fop-users/200801.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] If some mechanism were to be implemented inside the FO file, I think this approach would be a good one. It’s not as fine-grained as a PI (no means to say “from now on, do this”), but I share Jeremias’ feeling about PIs. >> 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. +1 Vincent -- Vincent Hennebert Anyware Technologies http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert http://www.anyware-tech.com Apache FOP Committer FOP Development/Consulting
