Andreas,
no argument from me against what you are proposing and also Joerg in [1]. We
can still have a Driver.java for backwards compatibility for those who want
to plug and play either in the product, or in a separate jar
(fop-compat.jar?), or just here in BugZilla.
Manuel
[1]
The Web Maestro wrote:
On Aug 1, 2005, at 2:58 AM, Chris Bowditch wrote:
I don't think adding/removing releases from the compliance page is
something we plan on doing frequently. A side by side comparsion is
only required now because the Trunk code is a complete re-write.
Once the trunk
Hello,
While looking for a RTF text encoder (for accentuated characters), I gave
a closer look at rtflib (in xml-fop_20050717162512.tar.gz).
It seems that here still a few dependancies on FOP in it. I understand it
is not a priority for the FOP-Team right now, but if it can help in some
way,
On Aug 1, 2005, at 11:37, Manuel Mall wrote:
no argument from me against what you are proposing and also Joerg in
[1]. We
can still have a Driver.java for backwards compatibility for those who
want
to plug and play either in the product, or in a separate jar
(fop-compat.jar?), or just here in
Merely FYI: slight correction needed...
On 30.07.2005 15:14:04 Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
Currently, I don't think we already have a mapping of these
object-applicable_props anywhere, ...
We do have such a map in org.apache.fop.fo.PropertySets, but I don't
get the impression that it is
On Aug 1, 2005, at 18:57, Sergey Simonchik wrote:
Hi,
Currently I work on upgrading FOP's RTF rendering. We need it as a
part of another project.
And now some patches to RTF-rendering with test cases are available.
So I have two questions:
1) Would you be so kind to tell your intention about
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:31 am, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
On Aug 1, 2005, at 11:37, Manuel Mall wrote:
no argument from me against what you are proposing and also Joerg
in [1]. We
can still have a Driver.java for backwards compatibility for those
who want
to plug and play either in the
Manuel Mall wrote:
BTW, why do we have the 3 columns Basic | Extended | Complete? Every
row will only have one cell out of those 3 filled out. Wouldn't it
make more sense to have a single column called Compliance or Core with
the values Basic, Extended or Complete? That would save valuable
Gentlemen,
can we agree on the following?
1. The compliance page must be able to handle multiple FOP versions.
2. Which versions are shown at any point in time and how they are called
will be decided on a case by case basis. Currently we are talking only
about the last official release
Victor,
thanks for the background information.
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:19 am, Victor Mote wrote:
Manuel Mall wrote:
BTW, why do we have the 3 columns Basic | Extended | Complete?
Every row will only have one cell out of those 3 filled out.
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a single column
10 matches
Mail list logo
