+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
On 08.10.2006 23:01:13 Kia Teymourian wrote:
Hi all,
I am working on a patch for Arabic/Persian Text decoration and
Implementation of Bidi Algorithm.
I have some questions about it and writing to you to ask for your
assistance,
could you please answer my questions!
1. Can I use
Uh yeah, right. I didn't think about that. No way around subclassing
Color then.
On 09.10.2006 09:54:31 Peter Coppens wrote:
Do you really have to extend the Color class? I think it already
provides methods to access the fallback sRGB value which is actually
what the FO spec wants
Subject says it all.
From the W3C news:
2006-10-06: W3C is pleased to announce the advancement of Extensible
Stylesheet Language (XSL) Version 1.1 to Proposed Recommendation.
Version 1.1 updates and enhances the XSL 1.0 Recommendation for change
marks, indexes, multiple flows, and bookmarks, and
If anyone has any requirements for XSL-FO 2.0 which I should bring up at
the workshop in Heidelberg next week, please let me know. Deadline
2006-10-16 so I have time to prepare.
Luca, are you going, too? How do you travel?
Jeremias Maerki
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=40695.
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=40695.
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=40695.
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=40655.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
On 09.10.2006 11:49:13 Peter Coppens wrote:
What is not clear to me is how I can get hold of the color-profile
information (as in
fo:declarations
fo:color-profile color-profile-name= src=.../ ?
/fo:declarations
)
Hmm, yes, I guess that will also have to be
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=40556.
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=40695.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
I don't think this will go without changing some method signatures.
Given that not in every context (see AreaTreeParser example above) you
have the FO tree available. So it may make sense to define a
ColorContext interface which allows access to the available color
profiles for the document.
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=40442.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
On second thought, having the conversion based on the profile might be the
right thing to do after all. Either the renderer knows how to deal with
color profiles and will do the necessary, or it does not in which case it
will ask the color for its rgb values. The profile based converted values
Hey, we're all constantly learning here and I didn't find anything
confusing or unclear in your questions. From what I can read between the
lines you're well on your way in the right direction. However, I must
excuse myself until Wednesday before I can continue to help you since
it's already very
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
If anyone has any requirements for XSL-FO 2.0 which I should bring up at
the workshop in Heidelberg next week, please let me know.
Some rough ideas, unpolished, and without even having had a look at
both 1.1 and the current 2.0 proposals:
- Generalize headers/footers for
A few. I do think, when proposing these things, it is important to remember
that XSL-FO is not intended to implement all possible typsetting operations,
that it still needs to remain easily implementable.
I guess one question I have is how different should XSL-FO 2.0 be from 1.1?
Should it just
On Monday 09 October 2006 05:01, Kia Teymourian wrote:
Hi all,
Hi,
Jeremias already responded to you and my comments go in the same
direction. Firstly, its great that you want to look at this aspect. I
did investigate support for UAX#14 Unicode compliant line breaking over
a year ago. I
19 matches
Mail list logo
