Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Speaking of which, how does the file created by '-at' differ from the
file generated by running xalan.bat?
That's the Area Tree XML: The layouted pages serialized to a proprietary
XML format. It's only interesting for debugging purposes (in layout
engine development).
And
On 23.06.2003 19:33:23 Clay Leeds wrote:
> On 6/23/2003 10:19 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > Nice idea, but there's a problem. The xsl namespace gets filtered out by
> > the XSLT engine, or IOW expanded to the FO attributes before they reach
> > FOP. FOP never sees anything with the xsl: prefix.
>
On 6/23/2003 10:19 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Nice idea, but there's a problem. The xsl namespace gets filtered out by
the XSLT engine, or IOW expanded to the FO attributes before they reach
FOP. FOP never sees anything with the xsl: prefix.
Does this mean that just about every fo:block in the inte
Nice idea, but there's a problem. The xsl namespace gets filtered out by
the XSLT engine, or IOW expanded to the FO attributes before they reach
FOP. FOP never sees anything with the xsl: prefix.
On 23.06.2003 18:51:45 Clay Leeds wrote:
> Forgive my intrusion, and perhaps this is not related, or j
On 6/23/2003 3:08 AM, J.U. Anderegg wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
How do you plan to handle RTF styles?
In jfor we defined an extension to XSL-FO (the "jfor-style" attribute)
to control RTF styles.
I think some form of extension is needed as (AFAIK) the concept of
styles does not exist in XSL-F
Le Lundi, 23 juin 2003, à 12:08 Europe/Zurich, J.U. Anderegg a écrit :
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
...In jfor we defined an extension to XSL-FO (the "jfor-style"
attribute)
to control RTF styles
(1) This is not a FOP extension, but rather a fundamental change of the
XSL-FO language, which does
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> ...
> > How do you plan to handle RTF styles?
>
> In jfor we defined an extension to XSL-FO (the "jfor-style" attribute)
> to control RTF styles.
>
> I think some form of extension is needed as (AFAIK) the concept of
> styles does not exist in XSL-FO, as it is meant f
Le Lundi, 23 juin 2003, à 10:35 Europe/Zurich, J.U. Anderegg a écrit :
...
How do you plan to handle RTF styles?
In jfor we defined an extension to XSL-FO (the "jfor-style" attribute)
to control RTF styles.
Another way would be to recognize sets of attribute values in the input
XSL-FO and map th
> Bertrand Delacretaz wrote
> The whole point of the StructureHandler interface is to be able to
> reuse FOP's "frontend" for structure-based renderers.
> The impact of StructureHandler on the "standard" FOP output formats
> (PDF mostly) is minor, but it allows the FOP "pipeline" to branch
> cle
Le Dimanche, 22 juin 2003, à 21:15 Europe/Zurich, Arnd Beißner a écrit :
...Before we're getting too philosophical, let me say
that we're now talking two different issues:
1. Is it possible to develop a conforming XSL:FO
implementation that produces RTF or MIF or similar
ouput?
Probably not, XSL-FO
Arnd Beissner wrote:
> determined a formatting-time if you can't hand over the
Correction, this typo can be misleading:
> determined at formatting-time if you can't hand over the
--
Cappelino Informationstechnologie GmbH
Arnd Beißner
Bahnhofstr. 3, 71063 Sindelfingen, Germany
Email: [EMAIL PROTE
Glen Mazza wrote:
> We don't do HTML at all (Xalan's department)-- HTML is
> browser dependent. HTML is not an output format.
I know, the purpose was to illustrate my point, since
everyone is familiar with HTML, but perhaps not with
MIF or RTF. If you think it makes sense for FOP to
output RTF,
--- Arnd Beißner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glen Mazza wrote:
>
> > So the XSL-FO spec--which FOP is trying to
> implement
> > for as many output types as possible--is not
> relevant
> > for those output types which don't need to know
> glyph
> > size? By putting it into a separate tool, that i
Glen Mazza wrote:
> So the XSL-FO spec--which FOP is trying to implement
> for as many output types as possible--is not relevant
> for those output types which don't need to know glyph
> size? By putting it into a separate tool, that is
> what you may be implying.
In a way, that's true. You need
--- Arnd Beißner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you need a clear differentiation between the
renderer types, you might take this one: do I need to
know the size of a glyph in a certain font/size to
produce the output? If yes, the appropriate renderer
goes into FOP, if not, it goes into a separate t
Peter B. West wrote:
> Bertrand is probably in the best position to comment wrt RTF. Is anyone
> familiar with MIF. Does it simply define page structures and flows?
I'm roughly familiar with MIF - did some rough HTML to MIF conversion
years ago.
Basically MIF is structured text that is annot
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 20.06.2003 21:23:50 Glen Mazza wrote:
If it does, it determines *which* type
of area tree to create (Structure or MIF or the other
one)--based again on the render_type. The business
logic for this would be in FOTreeBuilder.
But no area tree is generated when a Structur
17 matches
Mail list logo