Re: URI Resolution (was: Relative font weights and font selection)

On 08.08.2005 06:16:58 Manuel Mall wrote: > On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 01:04 am, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > > > Another important area would be URI resolution and proper and > > consistent resolution of relative paths. I think that is something > > that bugs especially our users through Cocoon. There a

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 36067] - [PATCH] Support for relative font sizes

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 36067] - [PATCH] Support for relative font sizes

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

URI Resolution (was: Relative font weights and font selection)

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 01:04 am, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > Another important area would be URI resolution and proper and > consistent resolution of relative paths. I think that is something > that bugs especially our users through Cocoon. There are a few > (older) notes about that in the Wiki. In thi

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 36068] New: - Inconsistency in property parsing

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 36067] - [PATCH] Support for relative font sizes

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 36067] - [PATCH] Support for relative font sizes

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 36067] - [PATCH] Support for relative font sizes

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 36067] - [PATCH] Support for relative font sizes

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

DO NOT REPLY [Bug 36067] New: - [PATCH] Support for relative font sizes

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

Re: Relative font weights and font selection

Jeremias, fair enough. I have done the "larger", "smaller" bits as they are constrained to the fop property subsystem and will post a patch later. They were quite a handy starting point in trying to understand the fop property system. Regarding the "bolder", "lighter" issue and the general f

Re: ant junit target fails

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 02:41 am, Simon Pepping wrote: > IMHO An upgrade of the jars in FOP does not solve > the problem of this test file. > Simon, 1. do you actually understand what the problem is because I don't? The test file (test/xml/bugtests/block.fo) is trivial. It works from the fop command

Bug report for Fop [2005/08/07]

+---+ | Bugzilla Bug ID | | +-+ | | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned

Re: ant junit target fails

I have always commented this test out in my working copy. I do not like tests that actually (also) test the exact innards of certain Xerces and Xalan versions. I have got several copies of those two on my system, and I use them via the endorsed-dirs mechanism. Some scripts use a different copy tha

Re: Relative font weights and font selection

Sounds like a few changes are necessary. Frankly, "larger", "smaller", "bolder" and "lighter" are really not that important right now. I can't remember anyone ever asking for them (although I could have simply not paid attention). Yes, I think this could interfere with the FOray font integration wo

Re: ant junit target fails

There were a number of these issues in the past. Yes, it's definitely time to upgrade the Xerces and Xalan JARs, although it won't fix the problems for those people who don't know how to replace the default Xerces/Crimson and Xalan versions coming with the JDK. But that can't be helped. As a rule,

Re: Relative font-sizes

If by the size table, you mean the new mapping for "small", "medium", "large", "x-large" etc. in FOPropertyMapping, then yes, it sounds right. No concerns. On 06.08.2005 12:20:47 Manuel Mall wrote: > Hi fop-devs, > > I am current looking into getting relative font-size property values, > e.g. "l

Re: ant junit target fails

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 10:37 pm, you wrote: > I am consistently getting the error below on the ant junit target. Further investigation showed that I can get rid of the error by upgrading the xerces/xalan combination. Here is a summary of what I found: xalan 2.4.1/xerces 2.2.1 as extracted from SVN