Cool. If there is nothing else code-wise, I'll stand by waiting to build the
release itself.
Arved
- Original Message -
From: "Christian Geisert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: FOP confor
On Monday 03 December 2001 12:19, Christian Geisert wrote:
> What about jfor ?
> I think it would be a good idea to add it with "user-level" integration as
> proposed by Betrand.
Depends on schedule - I'm very busy for the next two weeks, it would be hard
for me to find time to do the code movin
Keiron Liddle wrote:
>
[..]
> The things that I can think of that need doing are:
> - change appropriate "master-name" to "master-reference" in code and
> example documents
> - update version number and such info
>
> Then do some testing and check that everything is in order.
What about jfor ?
Tore Engvig wrote:
>
[..]
> The simple-page-master stuff that originated the whole maintenance release
> and Karen's table suggestions are still left to be done (Christian?)
Yes, I hope to send the patches tomorrow (tuesday)
> Tore
> I think too we should do a maintenance release (from
> 'fop-0_20_2-maintain'
> branch).
>
> I volunteer to do the necessary patches, do some testing etc.
Very Good!!
Then I suggest you set a timetable to do the release.
Tore has already committed a bunch of things. Batik has been updated to
Christian Geisert wrote:
[SNIP]
> I think too we should do a maintenance release (from 'fop-0_20_2-maintain'
> branch).
>
> I volunteer to do the necessary patches, do some testing etc.
I just checked in some patches that's been floating around into the
fop-0_20_2-maintain branch:
* Raymond Pe
I'm glad to see this will be getting done. I had thought of doing it,
but I'm trying not to get distracted and to devote what little time I
have (which is likely not to improve for the next two weeks
unfortunately) to the new FOP.
Since I'm going to be talking about XSL-FO at the XML 2001 conferen
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FOP conformance
And between me and Christian I think we will see to it that this change,
at
least, gets done and is reflected in a maintenance release, which I
suggest
should appear NLT Dec 15.
In other words, I accept your argument (that was never in question).
I
(and some others, such as Peter West) are
looking at the rewrite, so it's up to the rest of us to do stuff like this.
AHS
- Original Message -
From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 12:47 PM
Subject:
At 1:19 PM -0400 11/30/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>As regards the topic in general, I support Keiron 100%. The entire point of
>the rewrite is that during the process things are in limbo...this was well
>understood before, or so I thought.
It was understood. However, there was an implicit assum
be it. :-) Hopefully that'll
clear my head and allow me to get back into Java coding again.
Regards,
Arved Sandstrom
- Original Message -
From: "Christian Geisert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: FOP
Hi All:
Actually I was not implying or suggesting that you correct FOP and
make it work for just the "page-reference" property, that will be a minor
change on the great scheme of things, however if you have a number
of "minor" things, it eventually adds up to a lot of things.
On my particula
Keiron Liddle wrote:
>
> On 2001.11.30 15:39 Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> > At 4:48 PM -0400 11/29/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> > This was already a known thing, and Norman Walsh pointed it out also.
> >
> > There is simply no point in fixing this until the FOP rewrite emerges.
> >
> >
> > That
On 2001.11.30 15:39 Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> At 4:48 PM -0400 11/29/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> This was already a known thing, and Norman Walsh pointed it out also.
>
> There is simply no point in fixing this until the FOP rewrite emerges.
>
>
> That's your choice. However, you should r
At 4:48 PM -0400 11/29/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
This was already a known thing, and Norman Walsh pointed it out also.
There is simply no point in fixing this until the FOP rewrite emerges.
That's your choice. However, you should realize that this is going to
cause a lot of confusion for many
PM
Subject: FOP conformance
Hi all:
Anyone aware of how FOP
0.20.2 conforms to the latest XSL recommendations
of October of this year?, I am writing some
conformance tests for the latest
specifications and FOP complains about
it complains
Hi all:
Anyone aware of how FOP
0.20.2 conforms to the latest XSL recommendations
of October of this year?, I am writing some
conformance tests for the latest
specifications and FOP complains about
it complains about "master-reference", which used
to be "master-name" o
17 matches
Mail list logo
