Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
J.Pietschmann wrote:
I've got a lot of ideas myself, perhaps too many. What the
project needs is *working* *code*.
Working code is predicated on working ideas, is it not? That's why I
asked about
-Original Message-
From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yuck! Flashbacks of SoftRAM
Ok, that's understood! None of that here!
Thanks for the info. (I'll be back with more ideas... maybe some more bad
ones, but I'll leave you guys to judge that ;) )
Cheers,
Andreas
-Original Message-
From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
J.Pietschmann wrote:
I've got a lot of ideas myself, perhaps too many. What the
project needs is *working* *code*.
Working code is predicated on working ideas, is it not? That's why I
asked about ideas.
(eg. tomcat 3.x, 4.x, 5.x). Why should FOP
get away with only two iterations?
Manuel
- Original Message -
From: J.Pietschmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 3:26 AM
Subject: Re: FOs and Areas
Peter B. West wrote:
(does Jrg work
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
With all due respect, I think you're overreacting here. Maybe you already
know this yourself, and have changed your mind about the
'adios'... Anyway,
I have been following the discussions between Peter and yourself
(--at least
the recent ones, which may be exactly
-Original Message-
From: Victor Mote [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
snip /
The gist of this section seems to be ... that you don't know enough to
comment on what is going on. Duly noted.
Not quite. More like: I *think* I don't know enough (maybe _that_ is
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
Which is done by {which parser?}
Xerces 2.3.4, but it doesn't matter. The problem are the generated
Java objects.
80k? For how many fo:* approx. in the file?
8 objects. A table with some twenty odd columns and 800+ rows.
A TableCell, a Block and a FOText per cell.
J.Pietschmann wrote:
Peter B. West wrote:
(does Jrg work?),
Not in the archive.
I know you are a long-time advocate of sticking with the codebase, and
have been very critical of my approach, so I don't want to draw any
unwarranted conclusions here. Does the above mean that you are
interested
J.Pietschmann wrote:
Victor Mote wrote:
I guess you are saying that a page-sequence will use too much
memory (??).
Again, this is a non-issue. Just use a different LayoutStrategy
that is more
eager.
This can be an issue. In a real world file I benchmarked
(rendered to 58 pages),
the
Peter B. West wrote:
The statements are getting extreme. Let's just agree to differ. I'm
happy to let my code and the design that underlies it do my talking.
OK. For the reasons already mentioned, this does not work for me. I consider
this kind of behavior to be uncivilized. However, I have
-Original Message-
From: Victor Mote [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter B. West wrote:
The statements are getting extreme. Let's just agree to differ. I'm
happy to let my code and the design that underlies it do my talking.
OK. For the reasons already mentioned, this does not work
Peter B. West wrote:
(does Jrg work?),
Not in the archive.
I know you are a long-time advocate of sticking with the codebase, and
have been very critical of my approach, so I don't want to draw any
unwarranted conclusions here. Does the above mean that you are
interested in my ideas?
I've got
On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 15:56, J.Pietschmann wrote:
I've got a lot of ideas myself, perhaps too many. What the
project needs is *working* *code*.
Amen!
[but a short one, not drawn out like the final chorus of Messiah!]
--
John Austin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: John Austin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2003-12-17 at 15:56, J.Pietschmann wrote:
I've got a lot of ideas myself, perhaps too many. What the
project needs is *working* *code*.
Amen!
[but a short one, not drawn out like the final chorus of
Victor Mote wrote:
Peter B. West wrote:
Herewith some notes on the tortured relationship between the two. As I
don't know much about layout in HEAD, I am hoping that differences and
(hopefully) correspondences between my ideas and the HEAD redesign can
be pointed out by wiser HEADs than mine.
-Original Message-
From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip /
I realize the tone of this posting has not been entirely irenic. I'll
try harder.
As a kind-of headz up (seen my understanding, for the moment, is too little
to add anything interesting to the discussion
Peter B. West wrote:
It seems to me, however, that the key to 1) solving the layout
dependencies of FO property expressions, and 2) reducing footprint,
particularly for those long documents which are naturally expressed with
very large fo:flow trees in a few page-sequences, is to have the
Victor Mote wrote:
I guess you are saying that a page-sequence will use too much memory (??).
Again, this is a non-issue. Just use a different LayoutStrategy that is more
eager.
This can be an issue. In a real world file I benchmarked (rendered to 58 pages),
the FO tree for the second page
Victor,
The statements are getting extreme. Let's just agree to differ. I'm
happy to let my code and the design that underlies it do my talking.
Peter
--
Peter B. West http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html
--- Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems to me, however, that the key to 1) solving
the layout
dependencies of FO property expressions, and 2)
reducing footprint,
particularly for those long documents which are
naturally expressed with
very large fo:flow trees in a few
Peter B. West wrote:
Herewith some notes on the tortured relationship between the two. As I
don't know much about layout in HEAD, I am hoping that differences and
(hopefully) correspondences between my ideas and the HEAD redesign can
be pointed out by wiser HEADs than mine.
I don't claim to
21 matches
Mail list logo
