Re: Issues with layout engine test framework
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 05:20 am, Simon Pepping wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:39:03PM +0100, J.Pietschmann wrote: snip/ BTW. Ant 1.6.1 complains: build.xml:808: The fail type doesn't support the nested condition element. Do we really need a bleeding edge ant? (although the Ant people could be a bit less aggressive with adding features in minor releases too). The else attribute of the condition element (line 1046) requires Ant 1.6.3. Well, I upgraded. Sorry that was me - no intention to be bleeding edge - just looked at the ant documentation to see how I could do what I wanted and that feature seemed appropriate. Must admit never occurred to me to check when it was introduced into ant. If someone knows how to achieve the same or similar outcome with an older version of ant - I would say just go for it and fix build.xml. Simon Manuel
Re: start-indent / end-indent calculations for tables
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:15 pm, Manuel Mall wrote: It appears the property subsystem is not calculating the start-indent/end-indent values correctly for fo:table. I would expect that a fo:table border=5pt border-collapse=separate would have calculated start-/end-indents of 5000 (same as for fo:block border=5pt). However, the values are 0 causing borders on tables to be positioned incorrectly, e.g protruding into the left margin of the region-body. See table_table-layout_fixed_1.xml as an example. (which in turn is another example of a testcase which currently passes although it probably shouldn't). Forget about this - my mistake. I was under the misguided impression that: fo:block border=solid 5pt.../fo:block is identical to: fo:block border=solid 5pt margin=0pt.../fo:block Apparently it's not! Manuel Manuel
Re: svn commit: r345335 - /xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/documentation/content/xdocs/compliance.ihtml
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 10:20:09PM +0100, Jeremias Maerki wrote: A matter of definition, I guess. :-) Maybe we should really write [0.90alpha1] instead of [Latest] then. Care to do that? Or what do you prefer? When I visit a site with software, I expect the name latest to point to the latest stable distribution. The latest unstable distribution could be named something like development, unstable, testing or next. The file latest/.htaccess points to fop/0.20.5, and I think that is best. Simon On 18.11.2005 21:43:18 Simon Pepping wrote: Wouldn't latest point to the stable distribution, 0.20.5? Simon On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 09:45:59PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: jeremias Date: Thu Nov 17 13:45:55 2005 New Revision: 345335 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=345335view=rev Log: Changed Trunk to Latest Release/[Latest] Modified: xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/documentation/content/xdocs/compliance.ihtml -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
Re: latest and other symbolic names [was: svn commit: r345335 - /xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/documentation/content/xdocs/compliance.ihtml]
I had a look at some other Apache projects: cocoon: latest excalibur: current jakarta-struts: current lucene: current jakarta-regexp: current james: current logging/log4j: latest=1.2.12, unstable=1.3alpha7 rivet: current tomcat: 5.0.30beta = link to 5.0.30 ws-jaxme: current I propose the following: unstable is a link to 0.90 0.90alpha1 is a link to 0.90 current is a link to 0.20.5 The links appear as directory names on the distribution servers and on the web site, as Unix soft links or as empty directories with redirection. Simon On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:00:01PM +0100, Simon Pepping wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 10:20:09PM +0100, Jeremias Maerki wrote: A matter of definition, I guess. :-) Maybe we should really write [0.90alpha1] instead of [Latest] then. Care to do that? Or what do you prefer? When I visit a site with software, I expect the name latest to point to the latest stable distribution. The latest unstable distribution could be named something like development, unstable, testing or next. The file latest/.htaccess points to fop/0.20.5, and I think that is best. Simon On 18.11.2005 21:43:18 Simon Pepping wrote: Wouldn't latest point to the stable distribution, 0.20.5? Simon On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 09:45:59PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: jeremias Date: Thu Nov 17 13:45:55 2005 New Revision: 345335 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=345335view=rev Log: Changed Trunk to Latest Release/[Latest] Modified: xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/documentation/content/xdocs/compliance.ihtml -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
Re: latest and other symbolic names
I should have browsed a bit further. fop and batik already use current, as do several other projects in the xml subdirectory. Simon On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 08:09:49PM +0100, Simon Pepping wrote: I had a look at some other Apache projects: cocoon: latest excalibur:current jakarta-struts: current lucene: current jakarta-regexp: current james:current logging/log4j:latest=1.2.12, unstable=1.3alpha7 rivet:current tomcat: 5.0.30beta = link to 5.0.30 ws-jaxme: current I propose the following: unstable is a link to 0.90 0.90alpha1 is a link to 0.90 current is a link to 0.20.5 The links appear as directory names on the distribution servers and on the web site, as Unix soft links or as empty directories with redirection. Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
