DO NOT REPLY [Bug 52060] New: PDF/X-3:2002 should go with PDF Version 1.3

2011-10-20 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52060 Bug #: 52060 Summary: PDF/X-3:2002 should go with PDF Version 1.3 Product: Fop Version: 1.1dev Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal

UNSUBSCRIBE

2011-10-20 Thread Martin Kollar
UNSUBSCRIBE

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 51385] [PATCH] Configurable PDF version

2011-10-20 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51385 Willi willi.firul...@lycos.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||52060 --

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 52060] PDF/X-3:2002 should go with PDF Version 1.3

2011-10-20 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52060 Willi willi.firul...@lycos.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||51385 --- Comment

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 52060] PDF/X-3:2002 should go with PDF Version 1.3

2011-10-20 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52060 --- Comment #2 from Mehdi Houshmand med1...@gmail.com 2011-10-20 06:56:49 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) Will Version 1.3 be supported? This allows PDF versions to be specified between 1.4-1.7.

Re: Merge Request - Temp_ComplexScripts into Trunk

2011-10-20 Thread Simon Pepping
Jonathan, Obviously, FOP's strongest supporters over the past years do not require this new functionality. FOP needs the additional support of new stakeholders of this new functionality. Could your teams test it on their documents and report their findings to the fop-user email list? Simon

Re: Merge Request - Temp_ComplexScripts into Trunk

2011-10-20 Thread Chris Bowditch
On 19/10/2011 19:32, Simon Pepping wrote: Hi Simon, I think you misunderstood my mail. I don't want to stop the merge. I simply thought it was an appropriate time to discuss some concerns that Vincent and Peter had identified. You are preaching to the converted about the need for supporting

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 49687] [PATCH] Complex Script Support

2011-10-20 Thread bugzilla
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49687 --- Comment #44 from Glenn Adams gl...@skynav.com 2011-10-20 13:03:06 UTC --- (In reply to comment #43) Created attachment 27822 [details] list of Gujarati words and sentences As per my exchange with Glenn, I've attached a UTF-8

Re: Merge Request - Temp_ComplexScripts into Trunk

2011-10-20 Thread Vincent Hennebert
The Complex Scripts feature is obviously a great enhancement and we would all love to have it implemented in FOP. However, that should not come at the expense of maintainability and the implementation of other new features. When I look at the code in the Temp_ComplexScripts branch, I have serious

Re: Merge Request - Temp_ComplexScripts into Trunk

2011-10-20 Thread Peter Hancock
This is a tough one. The need for complex script support in FOP is likely high on the wish list of any global supporter of FOP and it is certainly in the interest of the project to support. The amount of work that Glenn has done is considerable: the volume of code, the test coverage and the

RE: Merge Request - Temp_ComplexScripts into Trunk

2011-10-20 Thread Jonathan Levinson
Hi Simon, I've contacted my management and asked what our teams can do to help test. I report to our development not to our quality departments, and I can't speak for our quality departments. I've contacted our international teams about what they can do to help test. The bottom-line to our