Peter B. West wrote:
> What's happened to the redesign? I have nothing to prove - you guys do.
> I'll just keep working, publishing design notes for anyone who is
> interested, and, when I get chunks of code working, I'll publish the
> comparisons. Shall we put them to the vote? Will a vote d
Glen Mazza wrote:
--- "Peter B. West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I thought it was generally
agreed some time ago
that my work on properties should be integrated, for
the simple reason
that it is smaller and faster.
Exactly! Now you're talking my language--"smaller and
faster"--i.e., somethi
Victor Mote wrote:
Glen Mazza wrote:
No response on the below questions from any committer,
and I'm concerned about the drop-off on the FOP-DEV
mailing list over the past few weeks (at an
extrapolated 170 emails on FOP-DEV for the month, this
would be our lightest month since Dec. 1999!)
Well
Victor and fopdevs,
See below...
Victor Mote wrote:
Peter B. West wrote:
I'm pleased and surprised to hear that most of your design questions
have been answered. What scope of design are you talking about?
Ah, a good question. The scope of design on which I am currently working is:
1) refact
--- "Peter B. West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I thought it was generally
> agreed some time ago
> that my work on properties should be integrated, for
> the simple reason
> that it is smaller and faster.
Exactly! Now you're talking my language--"smaller and
faster"--i.e., something that
Glen Mazza wrote:
> No response on the below questions from any committer,
> and I'm concerned about the drop-off on the FOP-DEV
> mailing list over the past few weeks (at an
> extrapolated 170 emails on FOP-DEV for the month, this
> would be our lightest month since Dec. 1999!)
Well, I think y
Glen,
I hope I did not leave the impression that stopping work on trunk was
what I was seeking. I thought it was generally agreed some time ago
that my work on properties should be integrated, for the simple reason
that it is smaller and faster. It seems now that there are
philosophical diff
J.Pietschmann wrote:
Peter B. West wrote:
The easiest way to proceed is to hack existing code.
Text-align="justify" is broken in HEAD. Challenge: make
it work. Right aligning works, so this should be easy...
I bet quite a few people looked at it and decided there
are less challenging but equally
Peter B. West wrote:
> I'm pleased and surprised to hear that most of your design questions
> have been answered. What scope of design are you talking about?
Ah, a good question. The scope of design on which I am currently working is:
1) refactor the startup procedures (Driver) into Session, Doc
Glen Mazza wrote:
> The decision to stop work in trunk--and to place all
> efforts into alt-design, should be put to a vote first
> by the committers. I'm quite reluctant for us to be
> putting all our eggs in one basket at this time.
AFAIK, there is no such proposal on the table from Peter or
Peter,
The decision to stop work in trunk--and to place all
efforts into alt-design, should be put to a vote first
by the committers. I'm quite reluctant for us to be
putting all our eggs in one basket at this time.
I want alt-design to "win" because it became the
better implementation over an
Peter B. West wrote:
The easiest way to proceed is to hack existing code.
Text-align="justify" is broken in HEAD. Challenge: make
it work. Right aligning works, so this should be easy...
I bet quite a few people looked at it and decided there
are less challenging but equally important (to them)
thi
Victor Mote wrote:
Glen Mazza wrote:
No response on the below questions from any committer,
and I'm concerned about the drop-off on the FOP-DEV
mailing list over the past few weeks (at an
extrapolated 170 emails on FOP-DEV for the month, this
would be our lightest month since Dec. 1999!)
At the
That concerns me as well. Personally, I must say that my fun time is
nearing an end. I need to reestablish a more or less regular income in
the next couple of months. So a lot of my energy is focused in this
direction which means less participation in this project. But it doesn't
mean I'm going awa
Glen Mazza wrote:
> No response on the below questions from any committer,
> and I'm concerned about the drop-off on the FOP-DEV
> mailing list over the past few weeks (at an
> extrapolated 170 emails on FOP-DEV for the month, this
> would be our lightest month since Dec. 1999!)
At the moment, mo
Team,
No response on the below questions from any committer,
and I'm concerned about the drop-off on the FOP-DEV
mailing list over the past few weeks (at an
extrapolated 170 emails on FOP-DEV for the month, this
would be our lightest month since Dec. 1999!)
I'd like us to continue progress on b
BTW, how certain are we that alt.design will be ready
for 1.0? Has there been agreement on switching the
alt.design by the committers yet--to the degree that
we should indeed forgo any improvement on the current
layout code?
I didn't get the impression from Joerg's email
http://marc.theaimsgrou
No user defined mappings. The semantics of such mappings have to be
defined elsewhere anyway.
Extensions will have to be programmed in alongside the fo: elements and
within the processing logic.
Peter
Glen Mazza wrote:
That simplifies things!--just out of curiosity, no
user-defined extension
That simplifies things!--just out of curiosity, no
user-defined extension mappings either? (Not that I
was clear how those would work with the current code
anyway...)
Thanks,
Glen
--- "Peter B. West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glen,
>
> There is no element mapping in the push parser of
> alt
Glen,
There is no element mapping in the push parser of alt.design, which we
are looking at integrating into the code for 1.0.
Peter
Glen Mazza wrote:
I was looking at how the Driver class initializes its
FOTreeBuilder instance with formatting object
ElementMappings. This currently occurs in t
20 matches
Mail list logo
