DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43824.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44482.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Dear XSL Editors,
as fo:table-row does not generate any area, the text in section 4.8,
“Keeps and Breaks” of the XSL-FO 1.1 Recommendation can’t be interpreted
as is for this element.
The question is: if keep-with-next is set on fo:table-row, shall we
consider that this is equivalent to
FYI, I'm going to revert the AFP Renderer in Trunk to revision 601712
(the revision before 603590 (2007-12-12) which broke the AFP Renderer).
Obviously, I'll have to reapply some of the changes that were done
in the meantime (like the image integration or changes in
AbstractPathOrientedRenderer).
Hi Jeremias,
I started to do this but if you prefer then be all means go ahead and revert yourself. The approach
I took was to take a trunk checkout and then apply
svn merge -r603590:603589 .
This should give you all the changes between commits (as 603589 works ok, but 603590 is broken) and
Hi,
In o.a.f.layoutmgr.TraitSetter.addBackground, why is
background-position-horizontal/vertical taken into account only if the
corresponding repeat is set to no? From what I read in the spec both
properties are allowed to play together. Or have I missed something?
Thanks,
Vincent
--
On Feb 25, 2008, at 18:15, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Hi Vincent,
In o.a.f.layoutmgr.TraitSetter.addBackground, why is
background-position-horizontal/vertical taken into account only if the
corresponding repeat is set to no?
I have no idea, honestly...
From what I read in the spec both
