Ok, here's a very short description for "extensions.xml":
cvs server: Diffing . Index: extensions.xml =================================================================== RCS file: /home/cvspublic/xml-fop/src/documentation/content/xdocs/extensions.xml,v retrieving revision 1.3.2.3 diff -r1.3.2.3 extensions.xml 52a51,62 > </section> > <section id="named-destinations"> > <title>Setting anchors</title> > <p> > This extension allows to define "named destinations" inside the PDF document. > They can be used as fragment identifiers, such as in "http://server/document.pdf#anchor-name";. > </p> > <source> > <![CDATA[ > <fox:destination xmlns:fox="http://xml.apache.org/fop/extensions"; > internal-destination="anchor-name"/> > ]]></source> Regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760 > -----Original Message----- > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:28 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: fox:destination > > > > From: Victor Mote [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 8:31 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: fox:destination > > > > > > Julian Reschke wrote: > > > > > while browsing the source of the maintenance branch I found > out that FOP > > > already has support for creating anchors within PDF files > > (things that can > > > be addressed using URL fragment identifiers). It seems that?it > > works just > > > fine. > > > > > > Why is this missing from the documentation? > > > > If you are saying that there is a fox:destination extension that creates > > named destinations in a PDF, then the reason that *I* haven't > documented it > > is that I didn't know about it. However, there is, IMO, another problem > > It has been added in February: > > "Added new extension element for defining named destinations (PDF) > Submitted by: Lloyd McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and Stefan Wachter" > > > here, and that is that I don't think that should be an > extension, but should > > work off of the "id" attribute. Right now "id"s can be targets, > but AFAIK > > they don't create named destinations. I can't think of a good reason why > > targets shouldn't be named destinations, so that two birds are > killed with > > one stone. I suppose there might be some file size advantage in some > > Actually I absolutely agree here. > > > situations, so maybe it should be configurable. I suppose that > any changes > > will need to be in the redesign, and that we should just document the > > existing behavior for now. > > Right. > > > At any rate, if you'll write something up and post it, I'll > test it and get > > it into the doc. Thanks for pointing this out. > > OK, I'll try. > > Julian > > -- > <green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
diff
Description: Binary data
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
