DO NOT REPLY [Bug 39840] - Multi page table fails with an endless loop error message

2006-06-19 Thread bugzilla
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 39840] - Multi page table fails with an endless loop error message

2006-06-19 Thread bugzilla
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 39840] - Multi page table failes with an endless loop error message

2006-06-19 Thread bugzilla
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 39840] - Multi page table failes with an endless loop error message

2006-06-19 Thread bugzilla
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 39840] New: - Multi page table failes with an endless loop error message

2006-06-19 Thread bugzilla
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: When to release 1.0?

2006-06-19 Thread Web Maestro Clay
On Jun 19, 2006, at 2:37 AM, Chris Bowditch wrote: Jeremias Maerki wrote: On 18.06.2006 20:50:31 Simon Pepping wrote: So maybe we need a feature freeze and bug fixing period? Not only that. We need a Wiki page listing all issues everyone wants to see fixed/handled before a 1.0 release. We ca

Re: Bug on Document

2006-06-19 Thread Jeremias Maerki
Indeed, the problem is your use of table-cells which are not defined by table-column elements. The current FOP Trunk code doesn't fail anymore in this constellation and outputs an informative warning. But I still suggest you define those table-column elements for each column. RTF could probably imp

Re: keep...="always" and Knuth penalties

2006-06-19 Thread Jeremias Maerki
On 19.06.2006 15:45:36 Luca Furini wrote: > Manuel Mall wrote: > > > What is still unclear to me is if it is worthwhile to implement this > > two pass approach, i.e. use INFINITE penalties first and relax later, or if > > it is good enough for 99.99% of cases just to start with INFINITE-1 > > pen

Re: Thoughts about image handling

2006-06-19 Thread Jeremias Maerki
On 19.06.2006 16:52:25 Max Berger wrote: > Dear Fop developers, > > after a while and some thinking, here is my concept for extensible > image handlers for fop, or even better for xmlgraphics. If desired, I > can implement this concept for xmlgraphics / fop with support for > imageio, jimi

Thoughts about image handling

2006-06-19 Thread Max Berger
Dear Fop developers, after a while and some thinking, here is my concept for extensible image handlers for fop, or even better for xmlgraphics. If desired, I can implement this concept for xmlgraphics / fop with support for imageio, jimi and batik. Image handling is a three-step process.

Re: keep...="always" and Knuth penalties

2006-06-19 Thread Luca Furini
Manuel Mall wrote: What is still unclear to me is if it is worthwhile to implement this two pass approach, i.e. use INFINITE penalties first and relax later, or if it is good enough for 99.99% of cases just to start with INFINITE-1 penalties for mandatory keeps? I think the second pass is nece

Re: keep...="always" and Knuth penalties

2006-06-19 Thread Jeremias Maerki
On 19.06.2006 14:54:06 Luca Furini wrote: > Manuel Mall wrote: > > > Yes, there is a force parameter and it seems to be always set to true > > for page breaking (and false for line breaking). But it doesn't seem to > > guarantee that breaks will be found otherwise we shouldn't get > > the "giv

Re: keep...="always" and Knuth penalties

2006-06-19 Thread Jeremias Maerki
On 19.06.2006 14:45:02 Manuel Mall wrote: > What is still unclear to me is if it is worthwhile to implement this two > pass approach, i.e. use INFINITE penalties first and relax later, or if > it is good enough for 99.99% of cases just to start with INFINITE-1 > penalties for mandatory keeps?

Re: keep...="always" and Knuth penalties

2006-06-19 Thread Luca Furini
Manuel Mall wrote: Yes, there is a force parameter and it seems to be always set to true for page breaking (and false for line breaking). But it doesn't seem to guarantee that breaks will be found otherwise we shouldn't get the "giving up after 50 retries" message. The "force" parameter requ

Re: keep...="always" and Knuth penalties

2006-06-19 Thread Manuel Mall
On Monday 19 June 2006 20:25, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > On 19.06.2006 13:38:56 Manuel Mall wrote: > > On Monday 19 June 2006 16:45, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > On 18.06.2006 20:57:51 Simon Pepping wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 07:36:45PM +0800, Manuel Mall wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Or

Re: keep...="always" and Knuth penalties

2006-06-19 Thread Vincent Hennebert
FYI: I'm planning to refactor the breaking algorithm in order to implement floats. I'll see what can be done in this area. Just keep in touch. Vincent Manuel Mall a écrit : On Monday 19 June 2006 16:45, Jeremias Maerki wrote: On 18.06.2006 20:57:51 Simon Pepping wrote: On Sun, Jun 18, 2006

Re: keep...="always" and Knuth penalties

2006-06-19 Thread Jeremias Maerki
On 19.06.2006 13:38:56 Manuel Mall wrote: > On Monday 19 June 2006 16:45, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > On 18.06.2006 20:57:51 Simon Pepping wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 07:36:45PM +0800, Manuel Mall wrote: > > > > > Or should we use a more refined approach were we generate > > > > initially

Re: keep...="always" and Knuth penalties

2006-06-19 Thread Manuel Mall
On Monday 19 June 2006 16:45, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > On 18.06.2006 20:57:51 Simon Pepping wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 07:36:45PM +0800, Manuel Mall wrote: > > > Or should we use a more refined approach were we generate > > > initially an INFINITE penalty but if the page breaking cannot >

Re: When to release 1.0?

2006-06-19 Thread Chris Bowditch
Jeremias Maerki wrote: On 18.06.2006 20:50:31 Simon Pepping wrote: So maybe we need a feature freeze and bug fixing period? Not only that. We need a Wiki page listing all issues everyone wants to see fixed/handled before a 1.0 release. We can then decide on which subset we are really goi

Re: When to release 1.0?

2006-06-19 Thread Chris Bowditch
Jeremias Maerki wrote: On 18.06.2006 13:26:00 Manuel Mall wrote: Calling a release 1.0 is IMO quite a significant step which shouldn't been taken lightly. What we are saying in doing so is: Here is something we believe is ready for production use. Yes, but neither should we put off a

Re: keep...="always" and Knuth penalties

2006-06-19 Thread Jeremias Maerki
On 18.06.2006 20:57:51 Simon Pepping wrote: > On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 07:36:45PM +0800, Manuel Mall wrote: > > I had a quick fiddle in one area and changed the Knuth penalty generated > > for a keep...="always" from INFINITE to INFINITE-1. In my few test > > cases that seem to have resolved the

Bug on Document

2006-06-19 Thread Alessio
Hi, there's a problem in this example for rtf format : xmlns:fo="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format"; xmlns:fox="http://xml.apache.org/fop/extensions";>column-width="100pt"/> padding-before="3pt" padding-after="3pt">text-align="start">test 1 padding-before="3pt"

Re: When to release 1.0?

2006-06-19 Thread Jeremias Maerki
On 18.06.2006 20:50:31 Simon Pepping wrote: > On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 07:26:00PM +0800, Manuel Mall wrote: > > On Sunday 18 June 2006 18:53, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > look a little deeper into the issue. I suspect both items will > > > require substantial changes in the layout engine which are

Re: When to release 1.0?

2006-06-19 Thread Jeremias Maerki
On 18.06.2006 22:54:41 J.Pietschmann wrote: > Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > I just realized we should think about the right moment to release 1.0. > > I think 1.0 should implement page masters with different > body width in the same page sequence. Ok, if we want that 1.0 won't be out before Septemb

Re: When to release 1.0?

2006-06-19 Thread Jeremias Maerki
On 18.06.2006 13:26:00 Manuel Mall wrote: > On Sunday 18 June 2006 18:53, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > I just realized we should think about the right moment to release > > 1.0. I guess the number of fixed bugs would suggest a new release > > rather sooner than later. I originally thought about goin

Re: Fw: ApacheCon US 2006 CFP, second notice

2006-06-19 Thread Patrick Paul
Hi, I'd be very interested in representing Apache FOP at ApacheCon US. Patrick Paul Jeremias Maerki wrote: Do we have someone to represent XML Graphics or one of its subprojects at ApacheCon US? I won't be going but if anyone wants my material for the FOP talks, they're available. Forwarded