A few. I do think, when proposing these things, it is important to remember
that XSL-FO is not intended to implement all possible typsetting operations,
that it still needs to remain easily implementable.
I guess one question I have is how different should XSL-FO 2.0 be from 1.1?
Should it just
How do you go about generating the Javadoc FOP documentation?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Generating-Javadoc-FOP-documentation-tf2419876.html#a6746559
Sent from the FOP - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Oh, I found a good one in the 1.1 spec.
Remove page-position=last/only; there is no way to guarentee that it can
work. There is no algorithm that can make it work in the general case. Sure,
if the last page and the page that would have been there had it not been the
last page used the same
Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
On Mar 7, 2007, at 22:49, Simon Pepping wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 03:58:18PM +0100, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Grr, I actually changed it but forgot to commit. Thanks for
handling it.
On 07.03.2007 10:42:38 Adrian Cumiskey wrote:
This is a quicky.. Our
as the user doesn't have to install a
program just to use FOP, I don't see a problem.
Simon Pepping @ Home wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 04:32:09PM -0800, Nicol Bolas wrote:
Well, consider this.
I know what a .bat file is; I know how to use one. I don't know what a
cmd
or a js startup script
Ultimately, I guess, it depends on what you're using FOP for.
I see XSL-FO as a means to print files. Or store them in a printable format.
XSL-FO is not an interchange format; it is not PDF, nor should it be looked
at as such. It exists to be converted into something based on the semantics
You missed several important points, however.
First, ODF and OOXML are not WYSIWYG formats. They cannot do what XSL-FO
says that they should. So any transformation from XSL-FO to ODF or OOXML is
fundamentally wrong. It violates the XSL-FO specification in various ways,
and there's no way to know
to, and nobody likes that circumstance. Nobody's asking
Microsoft to make Internet Explorer non-CSS compliant.
b.ohnsorg wrote:
Nicol Bolas wrote:
In any case, RTF lacks the full degree of expressiveness possible from
XSL-FO anyway, so some information is going to get lost. What's the point
