https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49848
Summary: keep-together.within-line=always does not work with
nested fo:inline
Product: Fop
Version: 0.95
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49849
--- Comment #1 from maximilian.as...@boc-eu.com 2010-08-31 05:32:47 EDT ---
Created an attachment (id=25963)
-- (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25963)
test case
Test case with some polish characters
--
Configure
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49849
maximilian.as...@boc-eu.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Simon Pepping wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 01:23:12PM -, vhenneb...@apache.org wrote:
Author: vhennebert
Date: Fri Aug 27 13:23:11 2010
New Revision: 990144
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=990144view=rev
Log:
Fixed indentation
In the output or in the source files?
In the
Hi,
I just thought I would homogenize our usage of todo tags and match what
seems to be the de facto standard (“TODO”) among current committers.
Most @todo indeed come from very old commits. I didn’t realise that
javadoc could do something with them, which is why that looked to me
like a minor
I don't have a strong opinion on whether to keep the @asf.todo or TODO. My
main interest was removing the javadocs warnings produced (under jdk1.6
doclet) through the former use of @todo.
My point in bringing it up was to request that we discuss beforehand
prospective changes that back-out or
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49849
Vincent Hennebert vhenneb...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|PDF links do only support |[PATCH]
Hi Glenn,
A dedicated class with meaningful fields (e.g., xPlacement, xAdvance)
would probably be preferable to an array of 4 int. This would be safer
and easier to understand and use.
For the rest, that sounds good.
Vincent
Glenn Adams wrote:
Folks,
I'd like to mention a change I will
