Re: cvs commit: xml-fop/src/java/org/apache/fop/fo FOTreeBuilder.java
I think fox: should also be validated. It's, by
definition, part of FOP core, and can't be
added/adjusted to by anyone but us.
FOP Processor: XSL FO's + FOP (fox:) FO's.
RenderX Processor: XSL FO's + RenderX FO's.
AntennaHouse Processor: XSL FO's + AntennaHouse FO's.
Whether or not a particular FO supported by a
processor has been christened by the W3C is an
irrelevancy that shouldn't affect architecture.
Glen
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> bckfnn 2004/09/08 13:25:55
>
> Modified:src/java/org/apache/fop/fo
> FOTreeBuilder.java
> Log:
> Disable the validation for extension elements.
> This is a temporary fix
> until a full validation framework that support
> extensions are in place.
>
> Revision ChangesPath
> 1.49 +6 -4
>
xml-fop/src/java/org/apache/fop/fo/FOTreeBuilder.java
>
> Index: FOTreeBuilder.java
>
>
===
> RCS file:
>
/home/cvs/xml-fop/src/java/org/apache/fop/fo/FOTreeBuilder.java,v
> retrieving revision 1.48
> retrieving revision 1.49
> diff -u -r1.48 -r1.49
> --- FOTreeBuilder.java 6 Sep 2004 18:44:31 -
> 1.48
> +++ FOTreeBuilder.java 8 Sep 2004 20:25:55 -
> 1.49
> @@ -255,10 +255,12 @@
>"Error: First element must
> be fo:root formatting object"));
>}
>} else { // check that incoming node is
> valid for currentFObj
> -try {
> -
> currentFObj.validateChildNode(locator, namespaceURI,
> localName);
> -} catch (SAXParseException e) {
> -throw e;
> +if
> (namespaceURI.equals(FOElementMapping.URI)) {
> +try {
> +
> currentFObj.validateChildNode(locator, namespaceURI,
> localName);
> +} catch (SAXParseException e) {
> +throw e;
> +}
>}
>}
>
>
>
>
>
>
-
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
RE: foray integration
Jeremias Maerki wrote: > silence from my part is simply because I don't have time. > It's not that I'm not interested. I'm fighting on too many > fronts and have to prioritize. Your first mail in this thread > is still marked unread in my mail folder so I keep it on the > todo list. I understand the time and priority issues all too well. The flip side of this is that my time is worth something too (really), and my priorities are important (at least to me). No one is more surprised or sorry than I that we have been unable to find a way to work together. It seems to be impossible. But I have said too much on this subject already. > What I hope is that you will continue to inform us of any > important developments on your side, that you also continue I don't mind doing this if there are no objections to it. I have no wish to intrude or distract. > to keep an eye on the upcoming XML Graphics project (when > it's finally looked at by the Board). To be honest, I must have missed some of the key parts of the conversation surrounding that project, and I don't really understand what is its purpose, except that it seems to be an attempt to factor out some code that is common to both FOP and Batik. If FOray's work is helpful along those lines, I'm glad for it, and I'll help in any reasonable way that I can. > I'll try to monitor what goes on in your project. Let's just > not drift apart to far that we can't converge again if, one > day, we see a possibility to join forces again. FOP and FOray seem to have radically different and incompatible principles, so convergence will probably depend on one or both of us changing principles. Out of the 18 months I worked on FOP, the most productive half of it was entirely wasted, and I have no intention of making that mistake again. I've gotten 10 times as much productive work done in the last four months as I did in my entire time working on FOP, and I'm having 100 times as much fun. It's a little hard to imagine what might induce me to give that up. Nevertheless, I'll watch with you to see if that possibility presents itself. Victor Mote
Logging of exception.
Hi, I didn't follow the discussion in the spring about command line -d and commons-logging so I'm likely missing some important pieces, but I'm a bit confused about the result. If I attempt to render a fatally corrupt input fo file like: , I get the expected SAXParseException message on the console and the "Turn on debugging for more information" line. When I turn on debugging, then the full exception is printed directly on the console (without using C-L!) and no information about the exception is sendt to C-L. So the C-L debug level directly controls output to System.err. That makes very little sense to me. At the very least the exception should be logged to C-L, right? I would also guess that any additional System.err output should be controlled separately from C-L, with a -d option. regards, finn
Re: foray integration
On Sep 8, 2004, at 12:00 PM, Victor Mote wrote: Victor Mote wrote: Does anyone else wish to take up this project? It would seem ... Whether through FOP or FOray, my goal is to get a general release completed before the end of September, so please let me know whether FOP wants to be part of it. I conclude from the silence that FOP does *not* wish to be part of this, so FOray will proceed on its own. This puts us in the regrettable and awkward position of being competitors for now. I highlight this only because I have previously disclaimed any such intention, and do not wish it to be so now. However, it is probably not a big deal -- there are 10 of you, one of me, and you have a three year head start. I do have one ethical dilemma that I need to throw back to the FOP developers, regarding FOP Bugzilla issues that have been addressed in FOray. For example, I just completed the work to get the ToUnicode CMap written in PDF output for CID fonts, which is Bugzilla entry #5335: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5335 I am tempted to make a note in the Bugzilla entry (but not to close the issue), so that those who are interested will know that they can get the issue fixed through FOray. However, since we are competitors, that might be construed by you as plowing in your field, which is not my intent. If any committer objects (within the next few days), I will refrain from making any such entries. Otherwise, it seems like useful information, not only for FOP users, but also for FOP developers who may wish to use the FOray solution as a reference. Best wishes to all of you. Victor Mote Thanks for the good wishes. I offer good wishes to you as well. I am actually interested in FOray, but I don't know how I would be able to help (it certainly wouldn't be in the manner of java code or code analysis). However, I'd want to make certain I wouldn't be overstepping any responsibilities I have as a committer. Web Maestro Clay
Re: foray integration
Victor, silence from my part is simply because I don't have time. It's not that I'm not interested. I'm fighting on too many fronts and have to prioritize. Your first mail in this thread is still marked unread in my mail folder so I keep it on the todo list. What I hope is that you will continue to inform us of any important developments on your side, that you also continue to keep an eye on the upcoming XML Graphics project (when it's finally looked at by the Board). I'll try to monitor what goes on in your project. Let's just not drift apart to far that we can't converge again if, one day, we see a possibility to join forces again. I can't decide for myself if putting notes into our Bugzilla reports about foray is a good or a bad thing. It's probably not such a bad thing as you will always have the problem that you're not at Apache anymore and the brand is simply having an influence on a lot of people. It's probably a -0 from my side. As long as your project stays with a BSD-style license I can't have much against that. On 08.09.2004 21:00:35 Victor Mote wrote: > Victor Mote wrote: > > > Does anyone else wish to take up this project? It would seem > > ... > > > Whether through FOP or FOray, my goal is to get a general > > release completed before the end of September, so please let > > me know whether FOP wants to be part of it. > > I conclude from the silence that FOP does *not* wish to be part of this, so > FOray will proceed on its own. This puts us in the regrettable and awkward > position of being competitors for now. I highlight this only because I have > previously disclaimed any such intention, and do not wish it to be so now. > However, it is probably not a big deal -- there are 10 of you, one of me, > and you have a three year head start. > > I do have one ethical dilemma that I need to throw back to the FOP > developers, regarding FOP Bugzilla issues that have been addressed in FOray. > For example, I just completed the work to get the ToUnicode CMap written in > PDF output for CID fonts, which is Bugzilla entry #5335: > http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5335 > I am tempted to make a note in the Bugzilla entry (but not to close the > issue), so that those who are interested will know that they can get the > issue fixed through FOray. However, since we are competitors, that might be > construed by you as plowing in your field, which is not my intent. If any > committer objects (within the next few days), I will refrain from making any > such entries. Otherwise, it seems like useful information, not only for FOP > users, but also for FOP developers who may wish to use the FOray solution as > a reference. > > Best wishes to all of you. Same to you! Please keep in touch. Jeremias Maerki
RE: foray integration
Victor Mote wrote: > Does anyone else wish to take up this project? It would seem ... > Whether through FOP or FOray, my goal is to get a general > release completed before the end of September, so please let > me know whether FOP wants to be part of it. I conclude from the silence that FOP does *not* wish to be part of this, so FOray will proceed on its own. This puts us in the regrettable and awkward position of being competitors for now. I highlight this only because I have previously disclaimed any such intention, and do not wish it to be so now. However, it is probably not a big deal -- there are 10 of you, one of me, and you have a three year head start. I do have one ethical dilemma that I need to throw back to the FOP developers, regarding FOP Bugzilla issues that have been addressed in FOray. For example, I just completed the work to get the ToUnicode CMap written in PDF output for CID fonts, which is Bugzilla entry #5335: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5335 I am tempted to make a note in the Bugzilla entry (but not to close the issue), so that those who are interested will know that they can get the issue fixed through FOray. However, since we are competitors, that might be construed by you as plowing in your field, which is not my intent. If any committer objects (within the next few days), I will refrain from making any such entries. Otherwise, it seems like useful information, not only for FOP users, but also for FOP developers who may wish to use the FOray solution as a reference. Best wishes to all of you. Victor Mote
