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=28706.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
snip/
Now, I'm wondering, since the spec states that an fo:table-row doesn't
generate any reference areas and since it can contain only TableCells,
whether it wouldn't be more interesting (heap-wise :) ) to create just one
TableRow object per TableBody, use it to process
-Original Message-
From: Chris Bowditch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Chris,
snip /
Huh? This is not true. Follow the link you provided to the spec.
table-rows can have background and border properties
(when border-collapse is on)
Hmm.. Yes, but... these properties are not
-Original Message-
From: Andreas L. Delmelle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Posting this as a follow-up to my earlier ponderings. If we don't get it
implemented, or postpone this one indefinitely, at least we'll have it
nicely summed up for possible future use... (Who knows, maybe parts of
Dear FOP Developers:
After considering a return to FOP development, and briefly discussing the
pros and cons with those whom I consider to be the FOP development leaders,
I have decided to partially fork FOP into a sourceforge project called
FOray:
http://foray.sourceforge.net/
The main reason
On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 07:10:50PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Team,
The following patch incorporates the (rather simple) LayoutStrategy code into
the apps.Document class, and does away with LayoutStrategy and
LayoutManagerLS.java. Implementation of multiple layout strategies, should
BTW, Andreas, sorry for not responding to your emails
on this thread, I'm juggling a bit much right now,
both FOP and non-FOP--thankfully Chris at least has
been able to comment on your work, and hopefully I
and/or a few others will be able to add something
later. Thanks for helping us out with
-Original Message-
From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
BTW, Andreas, sorry for not responding to your emails
on this thread, I'm juggling a bit much right now,
Well, don't worry about that... Just posting this all to see if it's just in
my head, or all crazy talk --and if not
N.B. CC'd to [EMAIL PROTECTED] follow-up to fop-dev
Victor Mote wrote:
Dear FOP Developers:
After considering a return to FOP development, and briefly discussing the
pros and cons with those whom I consider to be the FOP development leaders,
I have decided to partially fork FOP into a sourceforge
Peter B. West wrote:
Such a move would, obviously, have little or no impact on the
main project. The situation with FOray is more complicated.
I don't know whether it is Victor's intention to fork from
HEAD and continue the development along the lines he has
previously discussed, or to
10 matches
Mail list logo
