Dear Fop devs,
On Mit, 2008-02-20 at 10:24 +0000, Vincent Hennebert wrote: > >> 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. Probably very few - and if fop does not use them, it is not consistent to start using 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] This idea sounds really reasonable and consitent. Please note however, that XSL fo specified (color-profile)+ as content for fo:declarations at some point, which would make some documents non-conformant. So +1 for this one :) > >> 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 ok, sounds good. +1 > Vincent 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
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
