Robert P. J. Day wrote: > i understand the concept of a level of compliance of any feature > being one of basic, extended or complete. so, as i read it, for any > feature, it either is compliant for one of those three levels, > or it isn't. if that's the case, there seems to be no need for > anything but one of two colors, right? each table entry should > represent simply "yes" or "no". > > however, there are some "partial" compliance levels listed. what's > the significance of "partial"? clearly, that would technically mean > "no", correct? so why is it important that someone know that a particular > level is "partially" compliant?
Yes, "partial" is a subset of "no". This document has two very closely-related purposes. The first is to document the conformance to the standards. The second is to help users understand what they should expect when they use FOP. It is for the second purpose that "partial" is important. Yes, I could document all of them as "no", but that would be a disservice to those who might benefit from knowing that it actually does the part that they need. > on top of that, i see several "na" entries. i assume that means there > is no such compliance level for that feature. fair enough. "na" means "not applicable", which simply means that they don't apply to FOP, because they don't apply to any of FOP's output options. The text of the document explains it this way: "Please note that a number of properties and categories of properties are not supported because they do not apply to documents in visual formats." I just committed a change that should make this more clear. > so, in the worst case, you need four table entries: > > yes > partial (if this is even necessary) > no > N/A Yep, that's what we have. > at the risk of being north-american centric, why not just use > the traffic light colors? > > green == yes > yellow == partial (caution, warning, you get the idea) > red == no If I can be convinced that people are somehow confused or offended by the existing arrangement, I'll think about changing it. Otherwise, I this line of discussion looks like a real time-waster. > and perhaps white for N/A. given that the colors represent the N/A already is white. > table entries, i see no need to have anything else in those > table entries in terms of text. What else are you seeing? The four you list are the four that are there. Victor Mote --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
