Roland,
that's exactly the kind of stuff I wanted to hear. Thank you very much.
Some comments inline...
On 09.12.2005 00:57:47 Roland Neilands wrote:
> Jeremias,
>
> I haven't test it thoroughly yet, but you asked, so but here's what I've
> seen:
>
> 1. Images are not scaled & overrun block-container height & width. The
> images seem washed-out & pixelated (gif). This is a stopper, I was
> hoping it would work better than 20.5.
> <fo:block-container height="3cm" width="3cm" top="0cm" left="0cm"
> position="absolute">
> <fo:block>
> <fo:external-graphic height="3cm" width="3cm"
> src="file:images/{$logo}" scaling="uniform"/>
> </fo:block>
Andreas and Manuel already gave tips here. FOP 0.20.5 was incomplete and
somewhat wrong in its implementation here.
> 2. I had to move region-before after region-body in the
> simple-page-master. This makes no sense ;), but I assume this is from
> the spec. Not a problem.
>
> 3. NB. Had to replace <fo:table/> with
> <fo:table-cell><fo:block/></fo:table-cell>
Both 2 and 3 are compliance issues. From the command-line, you can use
"-r" to enable relaxed validation which will cause FOP to be less strict
about the rules established by the spec. In Java code you can set
setStrictValidation(false) on the FOUserAgent.
http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/0.90/embedding.html#config-internal
> 4. No line numbers on errors anymore? This was very useful for debugging
> stylesheets.
We have line numbers but not all error messages carry them with them,
yet. Help and patches are welcome. I guess this is "work in progress".
> 5. There seems to be extra space inserted between lines now. This breaks
> existing stylesheets static-content layout - is there some default
> attribute I can turn off for this? (space-before, padding?)
Can you please supply an example?
> 6. PCL - no chance of at least keeping the old renderer?
No, the renderer's interface is not 100% the same. PCL is on my radar
but its resurrection will not happen through my hand before February
2006. An alternative: Create PDF and convert that to PCL using
GhostScript (depending on your licensing situation).
> FWIW: I know these are mostly my compliance issues, but a FAQ on these
> kind of differences would help greatly.
Does this mean that the error messages are not good enough? Just curious.
> Cheers,
> Roland
>
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>
> >Dear users of Apache FOP,
> >
> >version 0.90alpha1 is now two weeks old. In this time we've already
> >received a number of bug reports and even some patches. Thanks to
> >those involved and to everybody who has sent us feedback on the new
> >version so far.
> >
> >Still, it's been a little quiet for my taste. :-) So, I'd like to ask
> >everybody who has tried 0.90alpha1 (or the latest FOP Trunk) so far to
> >tell us his/her first impression of the new code. Is it crap beyond what
> >is thought possible? *g* If there are problems, what are they (except
> >those we already documented, of course)? Or could it even be that you've
> >already rendered a few non-trivial documents and it didn't even look
> >that bad? We'd really appreciate some more feedback.
> >
> >If there are people who would like to contribute more than bug reports
> >and feedback, but don't know how, please speak up. We can always use
> >additional help and will be glad to get you on the right track.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Jeremias Maerki
Jeremias Maerki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
