To whom it may engage...
This is an automated request, but not an unsolicited one. For
more information please visit http://gump.apache.org/nagged.html,
and/or contact the folk at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project xml-fop has an issue affecting its community integration.
This issue affects 1
[Glen]
I'm not clear why you didn't derive
ValidationException from SAXParseException. I know
the locator is already present in FOPException, but
absent the subclass from SAXParseException, it ends up
being a different Locator object, i.e., user code
that would handle a SAXParseException can't
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31899.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
I see. Thanks for the explanation.
Glen
--- Finn Bock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Glen]
I'm not clear why you didn't derive
ValidationException from SAXParseException. I
know
the locator is already present in FOPException,
but
absent the subclass from SAXParseException, it
ends up
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31936.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31936.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31936.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31936.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31936.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31936.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31936.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Hi Clay:
I was looking at the compliance page on a totally unrelated topic, and
noticed that the property font-variant (Sec. 7.8.8) is listed as no.
When it is convenient, that should probably be changed to partial with
comments similar to the following:
1. True small-caps (glyph substitution)
I'd meant to comment on this before, but was hoping for a little
discussion from other FOP committers. Perhaps I was waiting until the
body got even 'colder'...
Speaking for myself, I want to be clear that I (and I assume others)
feel very fortunate to have had the benefit of the work of Peter
Victor,
On Oct 28, 2004, at 12:52 PM, Victor Mote wrote:
Hi Clay:
I was looking at the compliance page on a totally unrelated topic, and
noticed that the property font-variant (Sec. 7.8.8) is listed as
no.
When it is convenient, that should probably be changed to partial
with
comments similar
Clay,
Thanks for the comments. I would be interested to see the alt-design
doco running under the new Forrest regime before it is removed, because
I would like to take advantage of your hard work in coming to terms with
Forrest. It was difficult to get the documentation working in the
Clay Leeds wrote:
Unfortunately, I still have a few problems (see [1]), including a
rather gaping hole in the FOP Compliance page (it doesn't show *any*
content--d'oh!). I'm also working on some problems with various
problems in the alt.design portion of the web site. The problems are
most
I'd be happy to help out! Of course, since it appears to be moving
anyway, it might be easier for me to move your documentation to a new
forrest install and go from there. Either way, I'm happy to do what I
can. (IOW pile it on! :-p)
Web Maestro Clay
On Oct 28, 2004, at 2:00 PM, Peter B. West
Clay Leeds wrote:
Unfortunately, I still have a few problems (see [1]),
including a rather gaping hole in the FOP Compliance page (it
doesn't show *any* content--d'oh!). I'm also working on some
...
Actually, if you could help me a bit to figure out what
happened with the compliance
Thanks Clay. Please disregard deeply unworthy comment on a previous
message.
Peter
Clay Leeds wrote:
I'd be happy to help out! Of course, since it appears to be moving
anyway, it might be easier for me to move your documentation to a new
forrest install and go from there. Either way, I'm happy
On Oct 28, 2004, at 2:43 PM, Victor Mote wrote:
Clay Leeds wrote:
Unfortunately, I still have a few problems (see [1]),
including a rather gaping hole in the FOP Compliance page (it
doesn't show *any* content--d'oh!). I'm also working on some
...
Actually, if you could help me a bit to figure out
--- Clay Leeds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Speaking for myself, I want to be clear that I (and
I assume others)
feel very fortunate to have had the benefit of the
work of Peter B.
West on the alt.design portion of FOP. With the
possibility of Peter
moving on to work with Defoe, I just
On Oct 28, 2004, at 3:21 PM, Glen Mazza wrote:
--- Clay Leeds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Speaking for myself, I want to be clear that I (and
I assume others)
feel very fortunate to have had the benefit of the
work of Peter B.
West on the alt.design portion of FOP. With the
possibility of Peter
Peter:
I too wish you the best of luck with Defoe and with whatever your future FOP
involvement may be. One of my motivations with the modularization work was
to make room for the competing ideas, mostly yours, to share what could be
shared. This may help explain my frustration at your opposition
Victor,
Thank you for the compliments. It's interesting to see the development
of a multiple approaches, and the strength with which differing views
are held.
I've started a blog as a diary of Defoe development and, at the moment,
my learning experiences with Java 5.0, especially Typesafe
24 matches
Mail list logo
