On Friday 05 May 2006 00:46, KeithHarris wrote:
Oopse, sorry - Fop wasn't complaining about the shared id there - it
was b/c I'd got the same chunk in a different part of the fo file.
Following the old docs just brings up warnings (WARNING: Unknown
formatting object
On Saturday 06 May 2006 21:20, Manuel Mall wrote:
On Friday 05 May 2006 00:46, KeithHarris wrote:
Oopse, sorry - Fop wasn't complaining about the shared id there -
it was b/c I'd got the same chunk in a different part of the fo
file. Following the old docs just brings up warnings (WARNING:
I wonder if we should agree on some guidelines for the use of namespaces
(namespace prefixes) for extensions. I am thinking along the following
lines:
The namespace http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/extensions; (common
prefix fox) is reserved for generic extensions to FOP supported
across all
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=39501.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
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=39501.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 11:31:38PM +0800, Manuel Mall wrote:
I wonder if we should agree on some guidelines for the use of namespaces
(namespace prefixes) for extensions. I am thinking along the following
lines:
The namespace http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/extensions; (common
prefix
Dear FOP-dev group.
Firstly would just like to say that the current work being done on FOP
is fantastic. I've been able to use it in all manor of places from help
guides to dynamic content creation using Cocoon. :)
Re: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39443
I've done some
