Re: fox validation
Thanks. I did not know about the change. It certainly is a better writing style. I am still finishing the details of my documentation. After that I want to work on the layout. Regards, Simon On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 09:20:50PM -0700, Glen Mazza wrote: Yes, the way I see it, one of FOP's successes will be our close adherence to JAXP. Another one will be a very strict and solid FO validation component--a firm handshake that hopefully will paint FOP as a Tomcat-like reference implementation for XSL. BTW, Simon, and everyone else, there's about 30 or so validateChildNodes() left to be written--many of them quite complex. Feel free to help out if you'd like! Glen --- J.Pietschmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon Pepping wrote: The code in Root shows that fox:bookmarks is the only allowed fox child of fo:root. It is not clear that that is true. The web page extensions.html does not even mention fox:bookmarks. The example file examples/fo/basic/pdfoutline.fo clearly embeds fox:outline elements in fox:bookmarks. The docbook stylesheets authors place fox:outline elements directly in fo:root. FOP-0.20.5 has no problem with this arrangement. Even if it is true, it creates compatibility problems. This was changed in the redesign, outlines for bookmarks must now be put into a fox:bookmark. Yes, this is incompatible but cleans up pathological cases like fo:root fox:outline.../fox:outline fo:layout-master-set ... / fox:outline.../fox:outline fo:page-sequence /fo:page-sequence fox:outline.../fox:outline fo:page-sequence /fo:page-sequence /fo:root Some bookmarks in the above case wont be rendered, and it's quite difficult to reliably check for this condition. If there can only be a single fox:bookmark, error checking is much easier. Some would also claim it enforces better writing style. J.Pietschmann -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
Re: fox validation
Oh please do... --- Simon Pepping [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After that I want to work on the layout. Regards, Simon
fox validation
When I render an fo file that is generated with the docbook stylesheets, I get this validation error: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Error(2/12476): fox:outline is not a valid child element of fo:root. org.apache.fop.apps.FOPException: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: Error(2/12476): fox:outline is not a valid child element of fo:root. at org.apache.fop.apps.FOFileHandler.render(FOFileHandler.java:103) at org.apache.fop.apps.Fop.main(Fop.java:55) The code in Root shows that fox:bookmarks is the only allowed fox child of fo:root. It is not clear that that is true. The web page extensions.html does not even mention fox:bookmarks. The example file examples/fo/basic/pdfoutline.fo clearly embeds fox:outline elements in fox:bookmarks. The docbook stylesheets authors place fox:outline elements directly in fo:root. FOP-0.20.5 has no problem with this arrangement. Even if it is true, it creates compatibility problems. Regards, Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
Re: fox validation
Simon Pepping wrote: The code in Root shows that fox:bookmarks is the only allowed fox child of fo:root. It is not clear that that is true. The web page extensions.html does not even mention fox:bookmarks. The example file examples/fo/basic/pdfoutline.fo clearly embeds fox:outline elements in fox:bookmarks. The docbook stylesheets authors place fox:outline elements directly in fo:root. FOP-0.20.5 has no problem with this arrangement. Even if it is true, it creates compatibility problems. This was changed in the redesign, outlines for bookmarks must now be put into a fox:bookmark. Yes, this is incompatible but cleans up pathological cases like fo:root fox:outline.../fox:outline fo:layout-master-set ... / fox:outline.../fox:outline fo:page-sequence /fo:page-sequence fox:outline.../fox:outline fo:page-sequence /fo:page-sequence /fo:root Some bookmarks in the above case wont be rendered, and it's quite difficult to reliably check for this condition. If there can only be a single fox:bookmark, error checking is much easier. Some would also claim it enforces better writing style. J.Pietschmann
Re: fox validation
Yes, the way I see it, one of FOP's successes will be our close adherence to JAXP. Another one will be a very strict and solid FO validation component--a firm handshake that hopefully will paint FOP as a Tomcat-like reference implementation for XSL. BTW, Simon, and everyone else, there's about 30 or so validateChildNodes() left to be written--many of them quite complex. Feel free to help out if you'd like! Glen --- J.Pietschmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simon Pepping wrote: The code in Root shows that fox:bookmarks is the only allowed fox child of fo:root. It is not clear that that is true. The web page extensions.html does not even mention fox:bookmarks. The example file examples/fo/basic/pdfoutline.fo clearly embeds fox:outline elements in fox:bookmarks. The docbook stylesheets authors place fox:outline elements directly in fo:root. FOP-0.20.5 has no problem with this arrangement. Even if it is true, it creates compatibility problems. This was changed in the redesign, outlines for bookmarks must now be put into a fox:bookmark. Yes, this is incompatible but cleans up pathological cases like fo:root fox:outline.../fox:outline fo:layout-master-set ... / fox:outline.../fox:outline fo:page-sequence /fo:page-sequence fox:outline.../fox:outline fo:page-sequence /fo:page-sequence /fo:root Some bookmarks in the above case wont be rendered, and it's quite difficult to reliably check for this condition. If there can only be a single fox:bookmark, error checking is much easier. Some would also claim it enforces better writing style. J.Pietschmann
