Thanks for your 2 emails (that I couldn't read until today, sorry). As I wrote earlier, I will investigate how to automatically generate "unimplemented features" documentation.
Benoit > -----Original Message----- > From: Chuck Paussa [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 6:42 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: feature and limitation lists > > > Here's an FOP specific xsd. I sent the segregated DTD in a previous > response on this same thread. It's a pain to make a usable XSD from a > DTD because the conversion tools tend to explode everything > out and you > get enormous repeating elements. Anyway. Here it is for what > it's worth. > > Chuck Paussa > > MAISONNY Benoit wrote: > > >Say we have an FO schema (possibly converted from that > fo.dtd) and from that > >we remove what FOP doesn't do yet. Then we can easily > compare both schemas > >with XSLT and generate a nice report. (I would volunteer to > try and write > >that XSLT/report if people think it can be useful). > > > >Then we can add comments or annotations to tell about > workarounds and about > >what is implemented BUT still is not working as expected. > > > >However, I suppose it would be a lot of work to remove > unimplemented things > >from fo.dtd or fo.xsd. What do you think? > > > >Benoit > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 1:33 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: feature and limitation lists > > > > > >Hello, > >Markus wrote: > > > >>If you have any suggestions about how to do this easily then > >>share your ideas with us. > >> > >I've suggested (or asked) to create a special fop.dtd (not a > fo.dtd). > >This wouldn't regard all limitation and no workarounds, but > it would be a > >very good tool for imlementing applications using FOP. > >E.g.: > >fo.dtd" (I know that there's no official fo.dtd, I took the > one created by > >Nikolai Grigoriev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>): > >---------8X----------------8X----------- > ><!ENTITY % area-properties " > > clip CDATA #IMPLIED > > [..] > >"> > >[ ... block-properties is an entity based (indirectly) on > area-properties > >... ] > ><!ELEMENT fo:block (#PCDATA | fo:initial-property-set | > %basic-inlines; | > >%basic-blocks; | %out-of-lines; | %wrappers;)*> > ><!ATTLIST fo:block > > %block-properties; > > > >---------8X----------------8X----------- > > > > > >FOP.dtd: > >---------8X----------------8X----------- > ><!ENTITY % area-properties " > > <!-- clip CDATA #IMPLIED not implemented by FOP yet ---> > > [..] > >"> > >[ ... block-properties is an entity based (indirectly) on > area-properties > >... ] > ><!ELEMENT fo:block (#PCDATA | fo:initial-property-set | > %basic-inlines; | > >%basic-blocks; | %out-of-lines; | %wrappers;)*> > ><!ATTLIST fo:block > > %block-properties; > > > >---------8X----------------8X----------- > >I don't know how FOP is implementing these features, maybe > it would be > >easier to remove these entities and list all attributes and > content elements > >explicit. But maybe these entities represent the internal > implementation > >structure... > >A fop.dtd will answer all these question like: Feature XYZ > is not working, > >is it a bug in my FO document or a missing FOP feature. > Maybe workarounds > >can be mentioned in the fop.dtd, too. > >Since fo.dtd exists, it wouldn't be too much work to add > these comments. > >Regards, > >Jens > > > > >
