cvs commit: xml-fop/conf fop.xconf
olegt 2002/12/14 07:35:28 Modified:conf fop.xconf Log: Fixed well-formedness. Revision ChangesPath 1.3 +1 -1 xml-fop/conf/fop.xconf Index: fop.xconf === RCS file: /home/cvs/xml-fop/conf/fop.xconf,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- fop.xconf 22 Jul 2002 10:33:57 - 1.2 +++ fop.xconf 14 Dec 2002 15:35:28 - 1.3 @@ -104,5 +104,5 @@ /renderer /renderers -fop +/fop - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cvs commit: xml-fop/src/documentation README
vmote 2002/12/14 10:11:24
Modified:src/documentation README
Log:
Add clarifications from Jeff Turner Christian Geisert regarding publication
process.
Revision ChangesPath
1.3 +17 -7 xml-fop/src/documentation/README
Index: README
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/xml-fop/src/documentation/README,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3
--- README11 Dec 2002 19:06:38 - 1.2
+++ README14 Dec 2002 18:11:24 - 1.3
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+$Id$
+
To update the FOP website:
Background
@@ -35,15 +37,23 @@
Notes
-
- 1. Per Jeff Turner, the downstream process of publishing our web site is as
-follows:
-- Committers commit generated docs to xml-site/targets/{project}
-- Every X hours, a script updates /www/xml.apache.org/ or wherever on
- the live site, from CVS.
- 2. Per Jeff Turner, the FOP website is being regenerated (from the contents
-of xml-site/targets/fop) by Forrest every hour.
+ 1. Per information from Jeff Turner Christian Geisert, the downstream
+process of publishing our web site is as follows:
+- Committers commit generated docs to xml-site/targets/fop
+- Every 6 hours (midnight, 6am, noon, 6pm Pacific time), a script (which is
+ maintained by Sam Ruby) updates the FOP website:
+ - soucre: icarus (cvs.apache.org), specifically from
+/home/cvs/xml-site/targets/fop.
+ - target: daedalus (xml.apache.org)
+ 2. Per Jeff Turner, the contents of the FOP website (but not the web site
+itself) are being regenerated by Forrest every hour.
+This process actually checks out the contents of xml-fop/src/documentation
+from CVS and builds the web-site contents with the latest Forrest.
+This process has no relation to what is in xml-site/targets/fop.
See http://forrestbot.cocoondev.org/site/xml-fop for the contents.
Although we found this interesting (especially wondering how they got around
the headless server problem), it doesn't change our workflow above, because
we don't know where, at the filesystem level, these files exist, so we have
no way of copying them to xml-site/targets/fop.
+
+Last Line of $RCSfile$
\ No newline at end of file
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun XSL Formatter
Arved Sandstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, Java or C or C++ or Haskell, it would have been nice to have a clue. We have an ASF tradition of developing communities...this kind of stuff that Sun and IBM does is getting old. Don't open-source it; sell it. I will argue against its adoption into Apache. Googling for xmlroff yields: http://www.plurb.com/webservices/UBL4.pdf Looks like they want to donate it to Gnome, not Apache. Despite your not wanting to sound bitter, your protest still sounds bitter anyway. -Peter- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sun XSL Formatter
Peter S. Housel wrote: Looks like they want to donate it to Gnome, not Apache. AFAIR, the BSD license is pretty incompatible with the Apache license. One of the reasons that the xmlroff announcement doesn't change my commitment to FOP is that, for my interests anyway, the Apache license is superior. Others are that it is not written in Java, and only runs on Sun-supported operating systems. It almost seems like Java was bypassed because it runs on Microsoft operating systems. There are other deficiencies that I think are probable, but we won't know until we get to play with it. I definitely intend to keep plugging away at FOP. Victor Mote - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sun XSL Formatter
-Original Message- From: Peter S. Housel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 14, 2002 2:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Sun XSL Formatter Arved Sandstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, Java or C or C++ or Haskell, it would have been nice to have a clue. We have an ASF tradition of developing communities...this kind of stuff that Sun and IBM does is getting old. Don't open-source it; sell it. I will argue against its adoption into Apache. Googling for xmlroff yields: http://www.plurb.com/webservices/UBL4.pdf Looks like they want to donate it to Gnome, not Apache. Despite your not wanting to sound bitter, your protest still sounds bitter anyway. -Peter- No bitterness at all, actually, Peter. It takes a bit of wind out of my sails, sure, since xmlroff is so similar to the project that Eric Bischoff and myself were working on. Tony has certainly been aware of that for quite a long time - I don't understand why the secrecy, myself, seeing as how we are now looking at an OSS donation anyway. I'd be bitter if I were so arrogant as to think of myself as being upstaged. :-) That's not the case. I am quite familiar with the spec, and there are now a number of competing efforts. None of which are quite accurate. So there is room for more competition. Alternatively, I may talk to Tony and Eric and see if we can assist. Arved - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sun XSL Formatter
-Original Message- From: Victor Mote [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 14, 2002 3:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Sun XSL Formatter Peter S. Housel wrote: Looks like they want to donate it to Gnome, not Apache. AFAIR, the BSD license is pretty incompatible with the Apache license. One of the reasons that the xmlroff announcement doesn't change my commitment to FOP is that, for my interests anyway, the Apache license is superior. Others are that it is not written in Java, and only runs on Sun-supported operating systems. It almost seems like Java was bypassed because it runs on Microsoft operating systems. There are other deficiencies that I think are probable, but we won't know until we get to play with it. I definitely intend to keep plugging away at FOP. Victor Mote Victor, I intend to continue supporting FOP myself. But can I point out that C is about as portable as it gets? Arved - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sun XSL Formatter
Response Below: -Original Message- From: Arved Sandstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sat 12/14/2002 2:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: RE: Sun XSL Formatter Victor, I intend to continue supporting FOP myself. But can I point out that C is about as portable as it gets? As long as you stick to a certain set of universally-available libraries, the source is portable...yes. This is a different kind of portability than Java offers, though, and it's a lot easier to keep something tied to a single operating system in C than it is in Java, IMHO. Since I don't want a holy war, that's all I'm going to say about that. winmail.dat- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sun XSL Formatter
-Original Message- From: Victor Mote [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 14, 2002 3:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Sun XSL Formatter Arved Sandstrom wrote: But can I point out that C is about as portable as it gets? Maybe someone on this list has time to throw xmlroff source code into Visual Studio let us know how it goes :-) I'll probably do just that. If it was well-written code then it'll compile. There is nothing OS-specific about XSL, barring optimizations. Sorry, I don't mean to be smart. It certainly seems to me that C-portable is an entirely different concept than Java-portable. Sure, in a narrow sense. Binary rather than source. In practical terms C is considerably more portable. Java is basically a Windows and MacOS X VM. Also, I didn't intend to /only/ highlight portability. Java has lots of other advantages over C that are important to this kind of application. I won't recite them here, since everyone on this list already knows them. We could debate that. :-) I spend a lot of time every week dealing with Java NPEs. Seriously, you're right. Java is better for this. Writing good C requires a lot of background. Arved - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sun XSL Formatter
Peter S. Housel wrote: Arved Sandstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, Java or C or C++ or Haskell, it would have been nice to have a clue. We have an ASF tradition of developing communities...this kind of stuff that Sun and IBM does is getting old. Don't open-source it; sell it. I will argue against its adoption into Apache. Googling for xmlroff yields: http://www.plurb.com/webservices/UBL4.pdf Looks like they want to donate it to Gnome, not Apache. Despite your not wanting to sound bitter, your protest still sounds bitter anyway. Peter, Arved, In spite of Arved's protestations, I think he has reason to be bitter. I don't want to criticise a particular company, and especially not any particular individuals, but I think this incident underlines some endemic problems in the relationship between the corporate software world and the Open Source world. I am well aware of the enormous contributions to OSS of various corporations (Sun, IBM and Netscape spring immediately to mind.) I think, however, that these problems extend right into the standards development process itself. I should like to ponder these issues a little longer, and then perhaps take them up in a wider forum. Peter -- Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/ Lord, to whom shall we go? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sun XSL Formatter
Response below. -Original Message- From: Arved Sandstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sat 12/14/2002 3:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: RE: Sun XSL Formatter Sure, in a narrow sense. Binary rather than source. In practical terms C is considerably more portable. Java is basically a Windows and MacOS X VM. Last I checked, it was more than that. At a minimum, your list of OSes is a tad bit small. My company runs JBoss on an AS/400 running OS400, and one of my old instant messengers has been reported to be running on OS/2. And then there's things like the KVM. I'd like to see C so portable it goes straight from a Linux desktop and compiles for a Palm without requiring a mountain of preprocessor directives. We could debate that. :-) I spend a lot of time every week dealing with Java NPEs. I'm not sure what your point is there. I deal with null pointers in any language with pointers. Seriously, you're right. Java is better for this. Writing good C requires a lot of background. Lesser men could take offense to that. Especially if they weren't C programmers already. winmail.dat- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
