(cc to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - fyi)
On Friday 25 January 2002 00:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. . .
I see some notes about the inclusion of jfor (RTF output) into the FOP
project. I think that would be really cool, and speaks very well of the
effort put in thus far. Anyone care to comment on
On Friday 25 January 2002 00:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. . .
I am involved with the approval process for bringing new technology into
our company. We have several development groups who have seen the FOP
engine and would like to include it their applications.
. . .
One of our primary
I see a lot of posts going to fop-dev that really belong to the fop-user
mailing list.
Should we do something about it (I'd like to)?
If yes how best to do it - polite please ask there messages, having the
list moderated for a while, ?
- Bertrand
On Saturday 29 December 2001 02:57, Peter B. West wrote:
. . .let me know if there is some easy way to get full
conformance with the Apache XML norm, or if there are severe problems
viewing these pages with modern browsers.
Hi Peter,
FYI, with Konqueror (modern yes, 100% finished maybe not),
On Tuesday 18 December 2001 09:59, Matthias Fischer wrote:
Right now, I have a pice of code I would contribute. It would be useful, if
there were an alternative e-mail address to that of the list, to collect
the submitted code segments.
ok, right now we don't have an alternative address
On Monday 17 December 2001 09:07, Matthias Fischer wrote:
What are _your_ plans with regard to the material offered by W3C/Carmelo?
As mentioned by Keiron (see http://xml.apache.org/fop/testing.html), the
current FOP tests are based on automatically comparing the ouput
of two FOP revisions.
On Friday 14 December 2001 10:05, Matthias Fischer wrote:
However, you won't escape big maintenance so easily:
Right - maintaining such a test suite is not light work.
The advantage over pure documentation, however, is that both users and
developers directly benefit from having strong test
On Thursday 13 December 2001 15:35, Matthias Fischer wrote:
. . .
My whish to Santa Clause this year: A big fat list containing all major
graphic formats and the FO/FOP-related aspects that concern them.
. . .
I'm skeptical: to me big fat list means big maintenance work and usually
On Wednesday 12 December 2001 12:24, Lukas Pietsch wrote:
What's still slow is the preceding docbook-to-.fo conversion.
One thing I've seen is document referring to a DTD using an http:// URL.
This is ok, but usually the parser will go out to the Internet to fetch the
DTD, which can slow
On Wednesday 12 December 2001 14:42, Cyril Rognon wrote:
before making any modification to your docbook stylesheet, I suggest you
simply use some XML parser feature to deactivate the DTD validation and DTD
loading.
Yes, of course to actually solve the problem (assuming DTD fetching *is* the
On Friday 07 December 2001 12:55, Suhail Rashid wrote:
What does FOP stand for ;
Formatting Objects Processor
- Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday 03 December 2001 12:19, Christian Geisert wrote:
What about jfor ?
I think it would be a good idea to add it with user-level integration as
proposed by Betrand.
Depends on schedule - I'm very busy for the next two weeks, it would be hard
for me to find time to do the code moving
On Thursday 29 November 2001 12:44, Keiron Liddle wrote:
So are things like static areas, markers, page numbers etc. possible with
rtf or are these type of things simply not possible.
Keiron,
as far as I know, RTF does support the following (but jfor currently not for
most of these things) -
Hi Arved,
What are your recommendations for someone to come up to speed with RTF?
I'd recommend to stay away from it unless you really have to ;-)
Seriously, to someone accustomed to clear and well-defined specs, RTF is
somewhat messy, what it is really is a documented internal format, not a
Hi Keiron,
If there is not going to be a FOP release in the next few weeks, I
agree that a minimal integration does not make sense.
Currently the jfor conversion is driven directly from SAX events, so the
first thing that comes to mind is driving it from the FO tree.
You're right that,
On Friday 23 November 2001 20:13, Art Welch wrote:
. . .
Would it be possible to have one RTFRenderer
and then have an option use either the full FOP layout or bypass the FOP
layout for quick RTF?. . .
I don't know about using the full FOP layout - last time I tried (beginning
of this year)
On Thursday 18 October 2001 23:06, Art Welch wrote:
snip
My concerns are that if jfor excels at speed at the expense of
presentation.
1. Are jfor users going to be happy with jfor integrated with FOP
which seems to favor presentation over speed?
2. Would FOP users be happy with
On Friday 12 October 2001 23:14, Stephan Albers wrote:
after a long development period, we have finaly released the very first
version of XSLfast for public review and test.
Interesting, thanks for the info!
How is XSLfast licensed? Open Source? Commercial?
--
-- Bertrand Delacrétaz,
On Wednesday 10 October 2001 10:19, Thomas Kæregaard wrote:
I would like to distribute FOP with my application, but I don't want to
force people to install 5,4 MB worth of JRE.
Most likely you *will* have to distribute the JRE (unless you find a
compatible java-to-exe compiler?).
You might
On Thursday 11 October 2001 20:05, Scott Moore wrote:
I generated a 100 page PDF in about 20 seconds
Would you mind sharing the XSL-FO of this document?
We are currently studying how far optimizing FO code (just on one example
document that we know is less than optimal) makes a difference, and
On Tuesday 09 October 2001 10:52, Kuehnberger wrote:
my servlet is still called twice when the output is pdf,
Are you using Internet Explorer as a client?
If yes, this is a known problem: IE often does additional requests for
non-HTML files. AFAIK this is hard, if not impossible, to solve on
On Monday 24 September 2001 12:18, Beer, Christian wrote:
Will there be a RTF renderer in the near future?
We (my company, I'm not speaking for the FOP team) have been working on an
RTF renderer earlier this year, and later scrapped it for a standalone
implementation known as jfor that is
So the question is: can we drop java 1.1 support and use better data
structures?
+1 for this:
-even switching to a 1.2 JVM (+hotspot) without code changes often brings big
performance improvements compared to 1.1, so IMHO forcing users to 1.2 is a
good thing for FOP in general
-the
In the jfor project (XSL-FO to RTF converter) we'd like to define extensions
to XSL-FO for RTF-specific constructs (RTF styles in this case).
Could someone from the FOP team check that the proposal below is ok with FOP?
Ideally, our jfor: extensions should be completely ignored by FOP, while
What happened to the rtf backend which Mr Bertarnd submitted?
Actually I didn't submit the RTF backend yet, only made it available as a
hacked version of fop on our own CVS server
(:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/cvsroot, password is
anoncvs, module name is xml-fop, cvsweb at
in other words I didn't find a file containing : package
org.apache.fop.fo.properties
I don't know the exact details, but the source code for
org.apache.fop.fo.properties is generated from XML and (I think) XSL files
during the build.
You can find the exact mechanism by studying the
I 'd like to convert a .RTF file to .FO file.
Is there a program doing it ?
There are a few programs called rtf2xml on the web (see
http://www.google.com/search?q=rtf2xml), but I didn't test any of them yet.
It might be your first step: convert RTF to XML, then use XSL to generate
XSL:FO.
101 - 127 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
