/show_bug.cgi?id=25997
[PATCH] Basic OpenType CFF Support for maintenance branch: 3 Patches
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-01-09 08:38 ---
related thread in FOP dev
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-devm=107342953607261w=2
/show_bug.cgi?id=25997
[PATCH] Basic OpenType CFF Support for maintenance branch: 3 Patches
Summary: [PATCH] Basic OpenType CFF Support for maintenance
branch: 3 Patches
Product: Fop
Version: 0.20.5
Platform: All
OS/Version: Other
Christian Geisert wrote:
I had planed to remove the old docs/example/embedding and add
the contrib/servlet stuff to the distributen for the release
+1 Sounds as simple while clean enough temporary solution.
Lets leave merging contrib/servlet and the main codebase to the trunk?
+1
--
Oleg
J.Pietschmann wrote:
[..]
web.xml: keep it with the *.java.
I would prefer something like src/conf/web.xml
servlet.jar: provide a property for the location, defaulting
to lib/servlet.jar. Conditionalize the servlet compilation
on availability of ${servlet.jar}. Users can either copy a
J.Pietschmann wrote:
web.xml: keep it with the *.java.
servlet.jar: provide a property for the location, defaulting
to lib/servlet.jar. Conditionalize the servlet compilation
on availability of ${servlet.jar}. Users can either copy a
servlet.jar to the lib directory, or use a
Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
Hmmm, looks like Joerg sees it differently -
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-devm=103196215022751w=2
This was a statement of the status quo, which I don't
like particularly well.
I think the servlet should be moved to src/org/apache/fop/servlet
and get a target in the
J.Pietschmann wrote:
I think the servlet should be moved to src/org/apache/fop/servlet
and get a target in the main build.xml file.
Wow, not a bad idea. But what about web.xml and servlet.jar, which is
required to build it? If it's in main build script we have to be more
careful, otherwise it
Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
Wow, not a bad idea. But what about web.xml and servlet.jar, which is
required to build it? If it's in main build script we have to be more
careful, otherwise it can be one more fop-user-traffic-generator.
web.xml: keep it with the *.java.
servlet.jar: provide a property
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Yes, dump that directory. That's redundancy. We just have to make sure,
that the documentation points the right way, too.
Hmmm, looks like Joerg sees it differently -
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-devm=103196215022751w=2
Contrib/servlet is not distributed,
Yes, dump that directory. That's redundancy. We just have to make sure,
that the documentation points the right way, too.
On 21.11.2002 20:41:21 Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
FOP sample servlets are now at contrib/servlet directory and look fine,
but docs/examples/embedding still contains kind of
-link isn't working as expected
in the maintenance branch (docs/example/fo/links.fo for example)
It seems that mergelinks() is the problem so I'll change
the default links.merge to no if there are no objections.
(IIRC there has been some discussion about this but a quick
search on the mailing list
Hi,
I just discoverd that basic-link isn't working as expected
in the maintenance branch (docs/example/fo/links.fo for example)
It seems that mergelinks() is the problem so I'll change
the default links.merge to no if there are no objections.
(IIRC there has been some discussion about
I fixed a bug there, but this obviously brought another. I'll have a
look at it.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:17:59 +0100 Christian Geisert wrote:
Hi,
I just discoverd that basic-link isn't working as expected
in the maintenance branch (docs/example/fo/links.fo for example)
It seems
/show_bug.cgi?id=13919
[Patch] Font Refactor, phase 1, maintenance branch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
/show_bug.cgi?id=13919
Font Refactor, phase 1, maintenance branch
Summary: Font Refactor, phase 1, maintenance branch
Product: Fop
Version: 0.20.4
Platform: All
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: Enhancement
Priority
/show_bug.cgi?id=13919
Font Refactor, phase 1, maintenance branch
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2002-10-24 08:26 ---
Created an attachment (id=3594)
tar file containing new Font-related classes -- extract in src/org/apache/fop/fonts
/show_bug.cgi?id=13919
Font Refactor, phase 1, maintenance branch
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2002-10-24 08:27 ---
Created an attachment (id=3595)
diffs for maintenance branch to use new font-related classes
/show_bug.cgi?id=13919
[Patch] Font Refactor, phase 1, maintenance branch
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Font Refactor, phase 1, |[Patch] Font Refactor
On 01.08.2002 23:09:32 J.Pietschmann wrote:
Hi all,
I've replaced most of the JDK 1.0 containers by 1.2 containers
in the maintenance branch, ready to commit. The PDF produced
from FOP examples compares ok with PDF produced before the
conversion. I might have screwed up other renderers
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I'm not so happy about this one. I know I'm also guilty of doing more
work for the maintenance branch than for the redesign, but stealing
code from the unfinished redesign for the maintenance branch seems to me
like starting to take its breath away.
The problem
Hi all,
I've replaced most of the JDK 1.0 containers by 1.2 containers
in the maintenance branch, ready to commit. The PDF produced
from FOP examples compares ok with PDF produced before the
conversion. I might have screwed up other renderers, in
particular the MIF renderer which required quite
trunk into
maintenance branch) but the problem is that stylebook needs
xerces1 which has been replaced with xerces2.
The question is if we should bring xerces1 back or just copy
the docs over (and tag the main branch with fop-0_20_4-doc)
for the release?
As Keiron already suggested (I had
Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Obviously there is a need for some documention with normal releases. We
don't need the design docs in the user releases, but all of the
operational material, including the FAQs, is necessary.
If we were to do source and compiled releases, the
On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 14:39, Joerg Pietschmann wrote:
+1 on omitting the design doc completely in bin distributions.
Should probably omit skin source and xsl too.
+1 also.
I'm not sure about PDF, apparently there are not much requests
for this format.
What's larger:
- PDF
- xdocs +
Joerg,
Joerg Pietschmann wrote:
Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Obviously there is a need for some documention with normal releases. We
don't need the design docs in the user releases, but all of the
operational material, including the FAQs, is necessary.
If we were to do source
J.Pietschmann schrieb:
[..]
The last checkin showed a generate commit notification mail
or something, but I didn't get one either.
AFAIK your commit mail needs to be approved once.
Best thing would be to ask root.
J.Pietschmann
Christian
Joerg Pietschmann schrieb:
[..]
That's exactly what I'm currently doing, the HTML and the
intermediate document-DTD files are produced in the build
directory. Unfortunately, as I already noted, it's an
all-or-nothing thing unless you are comfortable with broken
doc builds for some time.
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
We're not really in a hurry, are we?
I thought we are...
The problem is that DTD and XSL of all documents has to be
in sync, a partial commit breaks things :(
If it makes life simpler: +1. The only question arises when we're coming
to the point when we're starting with
Hello every one,
great thanks to the Fop developpers for their job.
I hear here and there about the maintenance branch CVS... is there any
chance for a maintenance release in the next weeks ?
I don't want to disturb anyone with my question. I am just asking because I
don't know what
Hi Christian,
Thanks for the patch. It has been applied.
On 2002.01.07 18:54 Christian Geisert wrote:
Hi,
this patch should fix infinite looping on tables if keep_with or row
spans are
not fitting on a page. This hack just ignores all keeps for a table after
the
first page-break
Hi,
this patch should fix infinite looping on tables if keep_with or row spans are
not fitting on a page. This hack just ignores all keeps for a table after the
first page-break (sounds really simple :-)
It would be better to check if the table starts already on top of the page but
I found no
Tore Engvig wrote:
Christian Geisert wrote:
Hi,
this patch adds text-decoration support for blocks. There still
some things
I want to do (like inherit text-decoration from a parent inline,
problems with
hyphenation and nbsp).
Actually I think fop supports nbsp (more or
Hi,
this patch adds text-decoration support for blocks. There still some things
I want to do (like inherit text-decoration from a parent inline, problems with
hyphenation and nbsp).
Christian
Index: docs/examples/fo/textdeko.fo
Hi,
this patch updates the 'test' dir to REC syntax.
(just changed master-name to master-reference on page-sequences)
I had some problems with strange line endings but I hope it is ok now.
Christian
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Doh, forgot the attachment...
this patch updates the 'test' dir to REC syntax.
(just changed master-name to master-reference on page-sequences)
I had some problems with strange line endings but I hope it is ok now.
Christian
Christian Geisert wrote:
Doh, forgot the attachment...
Ok, it's added to the maintain branch now.
Tore
this patch updates the 'test' dir to REC syntax.
(just changed master-name to master-reference on page-sequences)
I had some problems with strange line endings but I hope it is ok
:
Subject: [PATCH] update FOP
(maintenance branch) to REC syntax
05-12-2001 16:38
Please respond
Claus Nielsen wrote:
Christian,
When is page-position last correct implemented ?
When someone sends a patch ;-)
Seriously, I don't know anything about the current status of
page-position last. Maybe Arved can comment on it ?
Claus
Christian
Thanks!
I added the patch to cvs.
Tore
Hi,
I finally managed to update FOP to REC syntax..
According to the documented changes at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xsl-20011015/sliceF.html#changes
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/PR-xsl-20010828/sliceF.html#changes
the biggest thing was the
Hi,
I finally managed to update FOP to REC syntax..
According to the documented changes at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xsl-20011015/sliceF.html#changes
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/PR-xsl-20010828/sliceF.html#changes
the biggest thing was the renaming of the master-name property to
Hi,
I finally managed to update FOP to REC syntax..
According to the documented changes at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xsl-20011015/sliceF.html#changes
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/PR-xsl-20010828/sliceF.html#changes
the biggest thing was the renaming of the master-name property to
41 matches
Mail list logo
