Hi Joerg and others,
Here are some ideas. I don't consider this a better approach just an
alternative.
What are the problems we are trying to solve. Make it simple for someone
to understand and quickly use without hassle. make it configurable, fast
and customisable for specific situations like co
Peter,
I think they don't define it because it is a common well known (to them)
idea that is used across many specs.
Here is a quick definition I found:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/PR-UAAG10-2310/#def-user-agent
So if the user agent is FOP (+ how the document is eventually viewed)
then the val
Keiron,
You have nicely summarised the references to the user agent in the spec
(except for the first one, invalid markup error handling, which I think
you have added.) However, my problem with the notion in the spec of
user agent remains. The authors have never bothered to define it, and
w
maybe this could answer your question:
http://xml.apache.org/fop/design/useragent.html
ie. FOP is the user agent but in some cases people might want to alter
certain behaviour. So we provide a class to enable this.
On Tue, 2002-06-04 at 19:29, Peter B. West wrote:
> As a result of this exercise
The structure handler is specifically to receive events during the SAX
creation of the FO Tree so I don't see a need to have an interface and
the class with empty methods would be needed anyway.
So for the target format:
(side note: this would be consistent with the morphos)
- mime type
- data o
Hello all.
There was some talk about user agents, which sent me back to the spec. I
have never had any solid sense of what the user agent was all about, so
I have collected all of the references to "user agent" from the spec.
They should soon be available on the web site under NEW DESIGN->ALT
Ah. That clears it up. This definitely sounds like a step in the right direction.
-Original Message-
From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:05 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Exploring the FOP API design space
The MIME types for renderer
Hi Keiron
Oh, that's right. And there's AWT that might some kind of a speciality.
I mean, some will simply want to start the preview dialog, that's simple.
Others will want to paint on a custom panel.
Ok, that means we probably get another interface (TargetFormat?). That's
what is looked up usin
Hi Jeremias,
That sounds reasonable.
The actual interface may not be the render interface since we also need
to include the rtf, mif handlers.
On Tue, 2002-06-04 at 11:32, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> I'd compose the role name using the Renderer interfaces role name
> ("org.apache.fop.render.Rendere
Hi Keiron
> I agree that mime types would be appropriate to select the output
> format.
> How would you use a mime type to select a special type or an alternative
> renderer or do you think it is unlikely that there would be two
> renderers for the same mime type.
> Some people do have a sub-clas
I agree that mime types would be appropriate to select the output
format.
How would you use a mime type to select a special type or an alternative
renderer or do you think it is unlikely that there would be two
renderers for the same mime type.
Some people do have a sub-class of the awt renderer
technique. Jeremias, are you suggesting a
> monolithic class for handling all outputs that switches its logic based
> on a MIME-type argument specifying output format?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 3:05
s for handling all outputs that switches its logic based
on a MIME-type argument specifying output format?
-Original Message-
From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 3:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Exploring the FOP API design space
Jeremias M
Some remarks:
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> - I'm not sure if we should change the API in the maintenance branch.
> Breaking backwards-compatibility produces and deprecating old
> interfaces and classes is not so popular, usually.
Of course, that's why I thought of keeping the old interface for
qu
I'd like to make some research this evening (CET) to provide some more
thought-through comments. In the meantime I'd like to point out a few
things:
- Thanks, Jörg, for starting this. I'm in favor of redesigning the API.
- I don't believe we will be able to finalize the API this week. There's
to
cruft ?
--
David B. Bitton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.codenoevil.com
Code Made Fresh DailyT
- Original Message -
From: "J.Pietschmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "fop dev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 5:34 PM
Subject: Exploring the FOP API design space
> Hi foppers,
> I know
16 matches
Mail list logo
