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) -
On 2001.11.27 12:40 Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Without knowing too much about FOP internals, I think a processing chain
along these lines might help:
parsing if needed
- SAX events
- FO attributes processing (validation, inheritance)
- StructureRenderer
StructureRenderer is
EITHER
Hi, Bertrand
What are your recommendations for someone to come up to speed with RTF? I
(and possibly others) need to understand RTF better in order to assist.
The existing renderers for PDF, Postscript, XML and AWT can all handle raw
areas...they do no layout whatsoever. As I understand it,
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
Bertrand et al,
It looks as though the principle of disentangling the FO and Area tree
builds, with communication by a stream of FOEvents, would also be useful
in this context.
Peter
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Hi Arved,
What are your recommendations for someone to come up to speed with
]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 3:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Merging jfor into FOP - what's the plan?
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
Hi Bertrand,
For the short term I think that (1) would be the thing to do but since
there won't be a release of FOP for a while there may be no point doing
anything for the short term.
As for how it will eventually end up working with the rest of fop.
Can you give us a quick rundown of what
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)
