Officially supported version of the Recommendation
Guys, It may be worth clarifying which version of XSL-FO we officially support, now that 1.1 has reached the status of a recommendation. I guess we can now take it as a reference, since it clears some uncertainties of the 1.0 version. I've just noticed that I'm myself still looking at the 1.0 copy whenever I want to check something. So from now on, if we say that's what is written in the nth paragraph of section blah blah, do we all agree that we have the 1.1 version in mind? Any objection? Thanks, Vincent
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 41514] - [PATCH] Strict url validation of user config
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41514. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41514 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 01:46 --- (In reply to comment #28) Created an attachment (id=19576) -- (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19576action=view) [edit] main patch file I'v had problems again applying the patch: something went wrong with FontSetup, looks like the patch wants to remove this file entirely, which I don't think should be the case. Also, why did you change the DEFAULT_STRICT_FO_VALIDATION constant into DEFAULT_STRICT_VALIDATION? I think it would be clearer to leave it as is. Thanks, Vincent -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
Re: Officially supported version of the Recommendation
Vincent Hennebert wrote: Guys, It may be worth clarifying which version of XSL-FO we officially support, now that 1.1 has reached the status of a recommendation. I guess we can now take it as a reference, since it clears some uncertainties of the 1.0 version. I've just noticed that I'm myself still looking at the 1.0 copy whenever I want to check something. So from now on, if we say that's what is written in the nth paragraph of section blah blah, do we all agree that we have the 1.1 version in mind? Any objection? I agree, we should all be working from the 1.1 version now. As you already mentioned the 1.1 spec clarifies some ambiguous parts of the 1.0 spec. Although there still remain some confusing aspects in 1.1 too! Chris
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 41514] - [PATCH] Strict url validation of user config
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41514. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41514 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 03:16 --- (In reply to comment #29) (In reply to comment #28) Created an attachment (id=19576) -- (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19576action=view) [edit] [edit] main patch file I'v had problems again applying the patch: something went wrong with FontSetup, looks like the patch wants to remove this file entirely, which I don't think should be the case. Hmm.. not sure quite why that happened. Also, why did you change the DEFAULT_STRICT_FO_VALIDATION constant into DEFAULT_STRICT_VALIDATION? I think it would be clearer to leave it as is. Have done. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 41514] - [PATCH] Strict url validation of user config
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41514. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41514 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #19576|0 |1 is obsolete|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-13 03:17 --- Created an attachment (id=19578) -- (http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19578action=view) main patch file -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
Re: FO snippets for unit testing
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 08:04:00PM +0100, Vincent Hennebert wrote: Many thanks Andreas, that was enough to get me started! I've just committed a first test case for tables. This is still very rough, there's no testsuite, that won't be called by ant, but as long as I can run the tests from Eclipse from time to time I'm happy. Of course I'm open to any comments or suggestions. Very efficient, very nice. I think that eventually you should move the expectations into the test files, similarly to the layoutengine test files. Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
