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,
+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,
re
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 commu
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
needin
On Friday 19 October 2001 10:55, Alex McLintock wrote:
> Can anyone give me a quick overview of jFor's capabilities? In particular I
> would like to understand whether it only looks at text based capabilities
> of FO, or whether it also can cope with (for example) table borders, GIF
> and JPG, and
> > Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
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 th
On Thursday 18 October 2001 23:06, Art Welch wrote:
> 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 wi
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
Strong Yes!
__
For the latest news, go to http://www.asia1.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hought that I would mention 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
Sounds like a good idea to me. The more renderers the better.
+1
Art
-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,
recently, some code was
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 proc
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 p
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 J
+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
> -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
> fo
I don't officially count as these things go, but merging jfor and fop would
solve several issues I currently have.
jw
-Original Message-
From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 7:58 AM
To: FOP
Cc: Bertrand Delacretaz
Subject: [vote] Merging JFo
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
PROTECTED]'
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
or merging JFor with FOP is: +1
YS
-Original Message-
From: Alistair Hopkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 11:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [vote] Merging JFor with FOP
Can I just appeal for some limitation on the size of the JAR files required?
No
On Thursday 18 October 2001 17:45, Alistair Hopkins wrote:
> Can I just appeal for some limitation on the size of the JAR files
> required?
The jfor 0.5.1 jar weighs 130kB, less than 10% of the FOP 20.1 jar.
As for external libs, jfor only needs an XML parser, so most probably we can
use the sa
Can I just appeal for some limitation on the size of the JAR files required?
Not all java is server side and downloads sizes matter a lot!
Alistair
[still thinks Swing is a good idea]
[but so is rtf]
-Original Message-
From: Beer, Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, Oc
I would like to see JFor and FOP merge.
I personally have had the need to generate PDF and RTF from the same FO
file.
So I would like to see its merge and I think it would benefit the FO user
community.
Wufeng Zhou
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefano Mazzocchi [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
24 matches
Mail list logo
