I think, it's a very good idea.
jf
- Original Message -
From: Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FOP [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Bertrand Delacretaz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 2:58 PM
Subject: [vote] Merging JFor with FOP
Hi people,
recently, some code
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:58:17 Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
would you like to accept jfor code and give Bertand Delacretaz committer
status in order to perform the merging on the FOP code following the
technical directions that the FOP dev community will find more
appropriate?
+1
Yes I think this
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:45:09 Alistair Hopkins wrote:
With a little guidance, I will attempt some decoupling, especially from
Batik.
Any pointers? I've looked, and it seems fairly embroiled to me.
Alistair
This is something best done in the redesign, rather than doing it then
needing to
At 09:20 AM 10/19/01 +0200, Keiron Liddle wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:58:17 Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
would you like to accept jfor code and give Bertand Delacretaz committer
status in order to perform the merging on the FOP code following the
technical directions that the FOP dev community
+1. Positive list contribution combined with a big code contribution makes
it an easy call.
-Original Message-
From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 8:58 AM
To: FOP
Cc: Bertrand Delacretaz
Subject: [vote] Merging JFor with FOP
Hi people
Hi people,
recently, some code was donated to the Apache Cocoon project in order to
connect it with JFor (www.jfor.org) which is a FO-RTF processor.
It appeared evident to me (and to others, as I discovered later) that
jfor and FOP are doing different things but could be an advantage for
both
]'
Subject: RE: [vote] Merging JFor with FOP
With proper care it is always possible to restructure
the distribution so that unnecessary classes are not
included. There are Ascii, PCL and PDF renderers in FOP
- each can be in a separate jar file with no compile-time
dependencies from the main jar, so
At 02:58 PM 10/18/01 +0200, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
would you like to accept jfor code and give Bertand Delacretaz committer
status in order to perform the merging on the FOP code following the
technical directions that the FOP dev community will find more
appropriate?
Despite my recent lack of
-Original Message-
From: Jim Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: donderdag 18 oktober 2001 21:06
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [vote] Merging JFor with FOP
I don't officially count as these things go, but merging jfor and
fop would
solve several issues I currently
+1
it would make JFOR and FOP richer
John Kattestaart (Freeler) wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jim Wright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: donderdag 18 oktober 2001 21:06
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [vote] Merging JFor with FOP
I don't officially count
I think anything we can do to encourage the use of XSL-FO is a good
thing, especially now that XSL is finally a W3C Recommendation.
+1
Regards,
Karen Lease
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Hi people,
recently, some code was donated to the Apache Cocoon project in order to
connect it with JFor
I am not a comiter, but I had to deal with FOP once (versions 0.19
and 0.20) and it is very probable that I have to deal with JFor, and I
think this thing that is being proposed is a good one
+1
--
Emmanuel Cuevas
Senior Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> Hi
I am not a committer but here is my unofficial vote:
+1
It's a great advantage for everyone.
Am Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2001 14:58 schrieben Sie:
Hi people,
recently, some code was donated to the Apache Cocoon project in order to
connect it with JFor (www.jfor.org) which is a FO-RTF
it.
Art
-Original Message-
From: Art Welch
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 4:44 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: [vote] Merging JFor with FOP
Sounds like a good idea to me. The more renderers the better.
+1
Art
-Original Message-
From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL
Strong Yes!
__
For the latest news, go to http://www.asia1.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2001-10-18 at 15:42, Enrico Schnepel wrote:
I am not a committer but here is my unofficial vote:
+1
It's a great advantage for everyone.
I'm not a committer. I'm just a user of FOP. I haven't heard of jfor
before today.
I urge FOP committers to examine the proposal to merge and
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
