Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Adrian made the suggestion some time ago of using the fo:declarations
element to override configuration on a per-document basis:
[snip]
It’s not as fine-grained as a PI (no
means to say “from now on, do this”), but I share Jeremias’ feeling
about PIs.
From my experien
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FWIW: running FOP out-of-the-box to me is also a much more important
concern than removing those JARs, so I'm in favor of keeping the
status quo for now.
Seconded.
J.Pietschmann
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 11:37:42AM +, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> I get the same kind of errors on my Linux box. I don???t understand why
> the error under Java 1.4 does not occur when xercesImpl.jar is added to
> the classpath, since AFAIK we don???t trigger the endorsed mechanism, so
> the
Dear Fop devs,
On Mit, 2008-02-20 at 10:24 +, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> >> A PI could mean: From this point on in the whole document.
> >> HOWEVER: If fop currently uses no PIs (I am not sure about this), then
> >> it should be a fox: extension, to make all behavior similar.
> >
> > Indeed,
>- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
>Van: Vincent Hennebert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>I guess the simplest is to keep with the status quo, or with your
>solution #2 if you feel like implementing it. However, I would put only
>serializer and xercesImpl in the endorsed/ directory, since like
>
I get the same kind of errors on my Linux box. I don’t understand why
the error under Java 1.4 does not occur when xercesImpl.jar is added to
the classpath, since AFAIK we don’t trigger the endorsed mechanism, so
the default SAX parser implementation shipped with Java should not be
overridden.
Hi,
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> On 18.02.2008 17:04:52 Max Berger wrote:
>> Dear Fop Devs,
>>
>> i think this was the original intention of a "processing instruction".
>
> That's another possibility, yes.
>
>> I
>> really do not see clearly where fox:fail-on-missing-image would go in
>> the fo tree
