Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: Fries, Markus, fiscus GmbH, Bonn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] > I think these should be added as well for fop-0.20.3-2002-03-04: > > not implemented yet: > fo:block visibility="hidden" > page-position="last"
Anyway, attribute values are not yet considered in my XSLT. I'll do it later. > But what about "wrong" implementations? > Example: markers, or wrap-option="wrap" > This works fine, if spaces are existing. But it should wrap long > lines with no spaces at the boundaries as well. > > It would make sense to add javadoc like comments to the > dtd's or xsd's. You did not publish your "small xslt" yet? As I wrote, I plan to it later as well. I've done exactly this already for another XSchema: I have an external "annotations" XML file, instead of having the annotations inside the XSchema as it is usually). Annotations are then merged into the HTML doc. I will publish my small XSLT when it is more complete. This was just a quick-and-dirty feasibility test. Benoit > > Regards > > Markus Fries > > -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: MAISONNY Benoit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. April 2002 11:33 > An: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Betreff: RE: feature and limitation lists > > > Here are some early results. All elements are listed, but only > unimplemented attributes & child elements are shown within the > elements. Attributes values are not checked yet; additional comments > regarding partial implementation are not there yet neither. > > Obviously it needs some clean-up, but I will probably not continue > until 1-2 weeks from now (holidays :-). > > As Chuck wrote, it is not 100% correct. I noticed white-space- > and linefeed-treatment are claimed implemented, though I thought > they were not yet. Also, I think that fo:float is not implemented > neither. But I didn't check, maybe it is in 0.20.3. This is just a > "proof of concept", so I don't care too much about accuracy just yet. > > I did it using Chuck's DTD, not schema: I wrote a small XSLT that > walks through FO.dtd (converted to xsd) and checks if corresponding > element/attribute exists in FOP.dtd (xsd). (Actually, this generates > an XML file looking like a XSchema, which is then converted to HTML.) > > Chuck: a question about your xsd file: you grouped the attribute > types into xs:simpleType elements. But are we sure that a given > attribute is always implemented the same way in all elements that > has it? > > Comments welcome. > > Benoit > > P.S. For the record, I am not doing this on behalf of Eurocontrol, > despite me using that email address. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: MAISONNY Benoit [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 12:05 PM > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: RE: feature and limitation lists > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
