in other words I didn't find a file containing : package
org.apache.fop.fo.properties
I don't know the exact details, but the source code for
org.apache.fop.fo.properties is generated from XML and (I think) XSL files
during the build.
You can find the exact mechanism by studying the
I 'd like to convert a .RTF file to .FO file.
Is there a program doing it ?
There are a few programs called rtf2xml on the web (see
http://www.google.com/search?q=rtf2xml), but I didn't test any of them yet.
It might be your first step: convert RTF to XML, then use XSL to generate
XSL:FO.
What happened to the rtf backend which Mr Bertarnd submitted?
Actually I didn't submit the RTF backend yet, only made it available as a
hacked version of fop on our own CVS server
(:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/local/cvsroot, password is
anoncvs, module name is xml-fop, cvsweb at
In the jfor project (XSL-FO to RTF converter) we'd like to define extensions
to XSL-FO for RTF-specific constructs (RTF styles in this case).
Could someone from the FOP team check that the proposal below is ok with FOP?
Ideally, our jfor: extensions should be completely ignored by FOP, while
So the question is: can we drop java 1.1 support and use better data
structures?
+1 for this:
-even switching to a 1.2 JVM (+hotspot) without code changes often brings big
performance improvements compared to 1.1, so IMHO forcing users to 1.2 is a
good thing for FOP in general
-the
On Monday 24 September 2001 12:18, Beer, Christian wrote:
Will there be a RTF renderer in the near future?
We (my company, I'm not speaking for the FOP team) have been working on an
RTF renderer earlier this year, and later scrapped it for a standalone
implementation known as jfor that is
On Thursday 18 October 2001 23:06, Art Welch wrote:
snip
My concerns are that if jfor excels at speed at the expense of
presentation.
1. Are jfor users going to be happy with jfor integrated with FOP
which seems to favor presentation over speed?
2. Would FOP users be happy with
On Friday 23 November 2001 20:13, Art Welch wrote:
. . .
Would it be possible to have one RTFRenderer
and then have an option use either the full FOP layout or bypass the FOP
layout for quick RTF?. . .
I don't know about using the full FOP layout - last time I tried (beginning
of this year)
Hi Keiron,
If there is not going to be a FOP release in the next few weeks, I
agree that a minimal integration does not make sense.
Currently the jfor conversion is driven directly from SAX events, so the
first thing that comes to mind is driving it from the FO tree.
You're right that,
Hi Arved,
What are your recommendations for someone to come up to speed with RTF?
I'd recommend to stay away from it unless you really have to ;-)
Seriously, to someone accustomed to clear and well-defined specs, RTF is
somewhat messy, what it is really is a documented internal format, not a
On Tuesday 09 October 2001 10:52, Kuehnberger wrote:
my servlet is still called twice when the output is pdf,
Are you using Internet Explorer as a client?
If yes, this is a known problem: IE often does additional requests for
non-HTML files. AFAIK this is hard, if not impossible, to solve on
On Thursday 11 October 2001 20:05, Scott Moore wrote:
I generated a 100 page PDF in about 20 seconds
Would you mind sharing the XSL-FO of this document?
We are currently studying how far optimizing FO code (just on one example
document that we know is less than optimal) makes a difference, and
On Wednesday 10 October 2001 10:19, Thomas Kæregaard wrote:
I would like to distribute FOP with my application, but I don't want to
force people to install 5,4 MB worth of JRE.
Most likely you *will* have to distribute the JRE (unless you find a
compatible java-to-exe compiler?).
You might
On Friday 12 October 2001 23:14, Stephan Albers wrote:
after a long development period, we have finaly released the very first
version of XSLfast for public review and test.
Interesting, thanks for the info!
How is XSLfast licensed? Open Source? Commercial?
--
-- Bertrand Delacrétaz,
On Thursday 29 November 2001 12:44, Keiron Liddle wrote:
So are things like static areas, markers, page numbers etc. possible with
rtf or are these type of things simply not possible.
Keiron,
as far as I know, RTF does support the following (but jfor currently not for
most of these things) -
On Monday 03 December 2001 12:19, Christian Geisert wrote:
What about jfor ?
I think it would be a good idea to add it with user-level integration as
proposed by Betrand.
Depends on schedule - I'm very busy for the next two weeks, it would be hard
for me to find time to do the code moving
On Friday 07 December 2001 12:55, Suhail Rashid wrote:
What does FOP stand for ;
Formatting Objects Processor
- Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 12 December 2001 12:24, Lukas Pietsch wrote:
What's still slow is the preceding docbook-to-.fo conversion.
One thing I've seen is document referring to a DTD using an http:// URL.
This is ok, but usually the parser will go out to the Internet to fetch the
DTD, which can slow
On Wednesday 12 December 2001 14:42, Cyril Rognon wrote:
before making any modification to your docbook stylesheet, I suggest you
simply use some XML parser feature to deactivate the DTD validation and DTD
loading.
Yes, of course to actually solve the problem (assuming DTD fetching *is* the
On Thursday 13 December 2001 15:35, Matthias Fischer wrote:
. . .
My whish to Santa Clause this year: A big fat list containing all major
graphic formats and the FO/FOP-related aspects that concern them.
. . .
I'm skeptical: to me big fat list means big maintenance work and usually
On Friday 14 December 2001 10:05, Matthias Fischer wrote:
However, you won't escape big maintenance so easily:
Right - maintaining such a test suite is not light work.
The advantage over pure documentation, however, is that both users and
developers directly benefit from having strong test
On Monday 17 December 2001 09:07, Matthias Fischer wrote:
What are _your_ plans with regard to the material offered by W3C/Carmelo?
As mentioned by Keiron (see http://xml.apache.org/fop/testing.html), the
current FOP tests are based on automatically comparing the ouput
of two FOP revisions.
On Tuesday 18 December 2001 09:59, Matthias Fischer wrote:
Right now, I have a pice of code I would contribute. It would be useful, if
there were an alternative e-mail address to that of the list, to collect
the submitted code segments.
ok, right now we don't have an alternative address
On Saturday 29 December 2001 02:57, Peter B. West wrote:
. . .let me know if there is some easy way to get full
conformance with the Apache XML norm, or if there are severe problems
viewing these pages with modern browsers.
Hi Peter,
FYI, with Konqueror (modern yes, 100% finished maybe not),
(cc to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - fyi)
On Friday 25 January 2002 00:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. . .
I see some notes about the inclusion of jfor (RTF output) into the FOP
project. I think that would be really cool, and speaks very well of the
effort put in thus far. Anyone care to comment on
On Friday 25 January 2002 00:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
. . .
I am involved with the approval process for bringing new technology into
our company. We have several development groups who have seen the FOP
engine and would like to include it their applications.
. . .
One of our primary
I see a lot of posts going to fop-dev that really belong to the fop-user
mailing list.
Should we do something about it (I'd like to)?
If yes how best to do it - polite please ask there messages, having the
list moderated for a while, ?
- Bertrand
On Friday 25 January 2002 10:26, Jens von Pilgrim wrote:
. . .
On http://xml.apache.org/mail.html is only the fop-dev listed - is there
also a user list?
This is probably the cause - AFAIK fop-user is alive and kicking, just not
listed in the proper places.
Can anyone clarify the situation
(by the way your message was crossposted to fop-user, please avoid this as it
makes it very hard to follow discussions)
On Wednesday 30 January 2002 20:21, David Wood wrote:
I am a Java coder and know my way around the standard. I volunteer to try
to fix this, if someone who is more familiar
On Tuesday 05 February 2002 23:25, Peter B. West wrote:
. . .
I think that most people need some encouragement to take the
plunge in murky waters.
I agree, make sense with the various offers for help that came up in
the last few weeks.
- Bertrand
On Thursday 07 February 2002 03:57, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
. . .
If you do some code and want to
see it added to the main or maintenance branches, then the onus is on
one or more committers to explain why it's a bad idea, but there must
be a good reason.
. . .
To make sure there is no
On Thursday 07 February 2002 12:15, Keiron Liddle wrote:
. . .
Do we need to have this completely separate method of reading the fo
tree (layout managers is the other) when both do some similar things.
I'm not sure, I just can't picture how it should work at the moment.
Right - let me try to
On Friday 08 February 2002 01:58, Peter B. West wrote:
Bernard,
(That's Bertrand by the way ;-)
What sort of structure does rtf exhibit? Is it a page-based
structure, or is it divided, like xslfo, into page definitions and
flows? This is a critical difference as far as the design goes.
On Monday 11 February 2002 10:19, Keiron Liddle wrote:
. . .
At the end of a page sequence we know that all pages in the page
sequence can be rendered without being effected by any further XML.
Note that this won't be the case with RTF: AFAIK an RTF document has to
contain a document header
On Friday 15 February 2002 15:47, Roland wrote:
does anyone have a good tool to create an XSL:FO file without the use
of a stylesheet?
You might want to look at jdom (www.jdom.org), a very nice DOM
manipulation library for java.
Saxon (http://users.iclway.co.uk/mhkay/saxon) is also a good
On Sunday 17 February 2002 06:07, Peter B. West wrote:
. . .
FOTree maintains the property stacks with the initial value, current
value and history of the properties being defined on elements of the
FO Tree. It also implements Runnable, and its run() method is the
source of the FoTreeBuilder
On Monday 18 February 2002 10:54, Keiron Liddle wrote:
Can I remove everything under docs/html-docs.
+1 because
it will force the builds to have up to date information
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 13 March 2002 16:58, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
. . .
-
FOP uses iText as a PDF generation library
-
. . .
Maybe the following scenario could help making FOP
On Thursday 14 March 2002 09:00, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
. . .
1. FopParser parses and validates the input XSL-FO document
Not needed if using Cocoon as a pipeline.
. . .
Right, but it's so easy that we might as well keep it for easier
testing.
. . .
What I would like to see, is that FOP
On Thursday 14 March 2002 09:19, Keiron Liddle wrote:
. . .
Firstly the Area Tree is unavoidable. We must have a place to do the
layout and to store the page information.
. . .
Unavoidable for Layout rendering, isn't it?
I thought structure-based rendering wouldn't need the area tree.
. . .
On Thursday 14 March 2002 09:27, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
. . .
Hmmm... AFAIK FO is about layout, not semantical structure.
Bold is just Bold, and not emphasis or strong.
Maybe I don't get the point. Could you elaborate more please?
. . .
The term structure renderer (as you could find by
On Thursday 14 March 2002 09:27, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
. . .
I think that a SAXrenderer could be the solution. SAX is based on
calling a method when a tag begin-content-end is reached. It can be
used to communicate the Area Tree to the renderer in a clean way,
whith a standard interface.
Hi Peter,
Aside from my low opinion of SAX for process coupling, there should
be no need for communication back from the renderer.
. . .
cool - I thought the Area Tree code needed to know about font metrics
and the like, but if this communication is one-way all the better.
Regarding SAX
On Saturday 16 March 2002 14:52, Peter B. West wrote:
. . .
The last stage of the FOP process translates one page
description (the area tree) into another (the input to the target
renderer.)
ok
So why would anyone want to interpose another translation step into
this tightly coupled
On Monday 18 March 2002 13:37, Peter B. West wrote:
. . .
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
In conclusion, I think an interface based on XML documents (possibly
this pr.fo discussed above) is the best choice to use between the
FOP property resolution stage and the structure renderers like
RTF
Hi Peter,
On Monday 18 March 2002 22:06, Peter B. West wrote:
. . .
There's another gotcha - markers. The properties in markers are
resolved relative to the retrieve-marker invocation point.
. . .
Thanks - I'll keep this in mind when I get to play with this stuff..
-Bertrand
On Thursday 11 April 2002 12:16, you wrote:
I propose that we offer Peter West and Joerg Pietschmann to become
committers.
+1 for both!
(Although officially a committer I have done nothing concrete yet, so I hope
my vote counts ;-)
-Bertrand
This probably helps: http://www.anzacday.org.au/
-Bertrand
On Friday 26 April 2002 00:38, Martin Stricker wrote:
Peter B. West wrote:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years contemn.
At the going down of the sun, and in the morning,
We shall remember them.
Lest we forget.
Anzac Day
On Friday 26 April 2002 08:09, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
This probably helps: http://www.anzacday.org.au/
sorry for the noise - I didn't see that the question had long been answered.
PLEASE everybody use reply-to when replying to mailing lists messages. With
the right mail client, it allows
On Wednesday 01 May 2002 18:19, Peter B. West wrote:
Does the near-silence on this one signify consent?
I don't know enough about this to give meaningful advice, so in my case yes,
silence means consent.
- Bertrand
-
To
Hi Keiron,
. . .
We should be able to set common objects like the logging and config on
the structure handler itself.
But the context idea could be useful for other objects that it may need
to access.
. . .
ok, It wasn't clear for me either what would go into the context object, but
it is
Hi Peter,
Sorry for taking so long, week's been hectic around here.
. . .
I think you will still have attribute resolution problems. Remember
that some attributes are only going to be resolved during the layout.
I understand that some attributes cannot be resolved at the parsing stage,
On Monday 10 June 2002 17:06, Christian Geisert wrote:
. . .
1) Declare that Fop needs JDK1.3
Could cause confusion with Cocoon users - Cocoon requires JDK1.2.
2) Remove truetype font support from AWT viewer
+0
3) Compile Fop with JDK1.3 (which will be done anyway)
and state in the
On Tuesday 11 June 2002 08:22, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
. . .
2. Try to build up the support for version dependant code for the next
release.
. . .
Note that this is fairly easy to do using filtering in ant copy tasks and
package names containing identifiers.
For example:
package A contains
On Tuesday 11 June 2002 14:43, Rhett Aultman wrote:
. . .
Rather than relying on Ant, I'd say a runtime detection of VM demographics
(version, vendor, etc) would be in order, which could then allow a
classloader to select the correct classes to instantiate.
. . .
I like your idea a lot -
Hi Jochen,
Would it be thinkable for you to share examples of your XSL-FO documents, as
good examples of what works well in FOP?
The question of which constructs to use to get good performance come often,
so I think it would be a worthwile addition to the project.
If needed, I can send you a
On Thursday 13 June 2002 14:51, Ralph LaChance wrote:
ooo, I could use that !
You'll find it at
http://codeconsult.ch/download/string-warper/string-warper-2002-06-13.zip
There's a build.xml for ant, target test runs a self-test.
Actually I should have said a piece of java hacking. You'll see
On Wednesday 26 June 2002 22:42, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
. . .
We have the short form
but it seems like we have to switch (back?) to the long form.
. . .
I agree, Stefano's message [1] in the thread you mention makes it clear, . .
.the ASF board, to avoid confusion, wants everybody to stick
On Friday 26 July 2002 20:05, J.U. Anderegg wrote:
. . .
RTF is the format of yesterday: better generate MicroSoft Office XML or
Open Office XML.
Depends on what you're aiming for. RTF is a terrible format, yes, but at
least it allows documents to be opened by a fair number of wordprocessors.
Hi Peter,
I tentatively suggested using XSLT to generate RTF a little while ago,
but I had no idea whether it was feasible. The main question would seem
to be: is RTF a text-only format or a binary format? Can anyone answer
that one for us?
AFAIK, everything in RTF can be expressed with
Hello,
On Friday 26 July 2002 10:20, Mulet, Jordi wrote:
. . .
We have started to experiment with jfor (FO-RTF) and we don't know the
best path to follow and if there are plans to integrate jfor in FOP as a
RTF renderer.
. . .
Note that the jfor license was recently changed to allow it to
Hi Scott,
On Wednesday 09 October 2002 16:20, Sauyet, Scott (OTS-HAR) wrote:
Does anyone have a suggestion about something I could look at fixing /
enhancing which is not mission-critical, but which might give me a chance
to look at a fair bit of the code?
The integration of jfor
Hi Scott,
On Wednesday 09 October 2002 17:15, Sauyet, Scott (OTS-HAR) wrote:
. . .
So is integrating other renderers something that the group
would eventually like to do?
. . .
Yes, we've been talking about structure-based renderers (like RTF and MIF)
vs. layout-based ones (PDF being the
Hi Scott,
. . .anyone who wants to do it will not offend me by going ahead and doing
it without me.
. . .
We haven't had too many volunteers lately in this area, so this shouldn't be
a problem.
Just make sure to send your patches early, without waiting for your
enhancements to be finished.
On Monday 28 October 2002 11:18, Guy D'haenens wrote:
WHAT'S THIS?
I DIDN'T WRITE THIS MESSAGE!
I think the from: address is such that it is being rewritten by some part of
your mail system before delivery, it happened here too.
If you look at
I have added jfor-0.7.1.jar and its license to the lib subdirectory, and
created a first version of an RTFHandler that outputs (very rough) RTF
documents using the existing jfor RTF library [1].
build.sh examples now generates RTF documents, assuming the following is
set in
On Saturday 02 November 2002 10:35, Victor Mote wrote:
. . .I would also recommend that, in the above case,
we actually put the code into two different projects.
. . .
+1, I like the idea.
How about moving the new code (HEAD) to a separate (xml-fop2) CVS project
to clarify things, and maybe
On Friday 01 November 2002 16:51, Keiron Liddle wrote:
. . .Maybe the simplest is to move the old layout to the trunk, get that
working and put the new layout in a branch. But it needs to be agreed
upon.
. . .
It would be great if the layout engine could be factored out as a component
with a
On Monday 04 November 2002 23:53, Peter B. West wrote:
. . .I don't know the
mechanism for handling line-end differences on entry into a CVS
repository on a unix box.
. . .
AFAIK as long as the binary file flag is not set, CVS takes care of line
endings by itself when a file is checked out
On Monday 04 November 2002 17:02, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
. . .Does anyone have a good idea how to...
2. enforce correct line endings?
Using the commitinfo administrative file, scripts can be configured in CVS to
run when a file is committed, at which point you could detect the problem.
I'm
On Wednesday 06 November 2002 09:55, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
. . .
fo:external-graphic src=url(http://localhost/mydynamicimage)
xmlns:fop=http://xml.apache.org/fop; fop:disable-caching=true/
. . .
There are some fox: extensions already IIRC (never used them though, but
On Wednesday 06 November 2002 12:31, Keiron Liddle wrote:
. . .
What sort of jfor extensions are there, what do they do?
We have jfor:style to define RTF styles (similar to CSS classes in concept)
on the generated RTF elements. A concept that does not exist in XSL-FO as
it doesn't make sense
On Wednesday 06 November 2002 10:03, Keiron Liddle wrote:
. . .
Lots more to do but I think it is a good start.
Great job indeed!
I've also been looking at Forrest more closely recently, already very usable
and looks even more promising.
Need to brighten up or change the logo. Maybe we should
On Wednesday 06 November 2002 14:58, Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
. . .
Patch queue looks very good, and what about introducing one more queue for
feature requests?
. . .
I think these can be identified by the severity=enhancement field of
bugzilla issues, isn't that sufficient?
Maybe this must be
On Wednesday 06 November 2002 16:18, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
. . .
would you mind using the interface instead of the implementation where
possible?
big +1.
The only drawback is when you need to clone Collections, but the benefits far
outweigh this I think.
Maybe a minimal best practices or
On Wednesday 06 November 2002 16:31, Rhett Aultman wrote:
. . .
Maybe we should seriously consider a FOP developer coding standard and
start writing it down and putting it on the site. I'd offer to help with
that.
. . .
How about using a wiki page (web page where everyone can very easily
Wow, that's a quick vote...
I have setup the page at
http://codeconsult.ch/wiki/index.php/FopDevelopersStyleGuide
with a most basic style guide skeleton.
I have to run now, but feel free to work on it. Make sure you keep copies of
what you write, I cannot guarantee backups on this server yet.
On Thursday 07 November 2002 09:23, Keiron Liddle wrote:
Hi Developers,
I suggest we have a vote for Oleg to be a committer. If Oleg accepts
then he can get on with making FOP great!
+1 - welcome!
--
Bertrand Delacrétaz (codeconsult.ch, jfor.org)
buzzwords: XML, java, XSLT, Cocoon, FOP,
On Thursday 07 November 2002 10:09, Victor Mote wrote:
. . .
BTW, I haven't found any doc on the mozilla site to help in building these
URLs. If anyone knows of some, I would be grateful.
. . .
I don't think there's any other way than studying what the bugzilla query
form sends when you
On Friday 15 November 2002 09:30, Keiron Liddle wrote:
. . .(does anyone even know what I am talking
about)
Not much on my side as the whole layout thing is still a mystery to me
(because I have no experience in computing layouts and never took
the time to study this part the code in detail).
On Friday 15 November 2002 10:02, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
. . .There was the idea to organize a meeting among Apache
committers next year in the german-speaking part of the world
. . .
I might be interested too, depending on where and when. I am subscribed to
party@.
-Bertrand
On Wednesday 20 November 2002 10:23, Keiron Liddle wrote:
Plenty of eagerness shown already and I am sure he will do lots more for
the project.
Yes, agreed, here's my
+1
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wednesday 20 November 2002 15:15, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
. . .I've finally finished the first draft for our style guide...
Thanks!
I voted -1 on most TBD stuff, braces and spaces are not really important IMHO
and I think it's good that the style guide stays as small as possible.
-Bertrand
Great work Peter!
It makes a lot of sense to use higher-level than SAX events, and thanks for
explaining this so clearly.
If you allow me a suggestion regarding the structure of the code: maybe using
some table-driven stuff instead of the many if statements in
FoSimplePageMaster would be more
On Wednesday 20 November 2002 20:11, Rhett Aultman wrote:
I thought everyone was allowed to use a vote to express their opinion. If
I've gravely mistaken this, then I'll stop voting.
I *think* it is so, that everyone is welcome to express their opinion. But as
a mostly inactive committer I'm
On Thursday 21 November 2002 17:16, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
. . .
The MUST part is very small and establishes some hard rules. I'll try to
do the final layout in XML in a way that takes this into consideration.
ok, cool!
. . .
By the way, due to common desire I added a few lines on exception
On Thursday 21 November 2002 17:31, Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
. . .
final String myString = (String)myListIterator.next();
. . .
How do you think, is this final specifier only a style oriented or it have
some performance benefit also?
I don't know about performance, but I use it all the time
On Wednesday 27 November 2002 09:36, Keiron Liddle wrote:
On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 13:53, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
. . .
Problems that need to be addressed:
- All Java sources need to be checked easily before a release (do they
compile, do they work?).
Could ant call help out here? No extra
On Sunday 01 December 2002 22:26, Oleg Tkachenko wrote:
. . .
J.Pietschmann wrote:
I think
we should leverage final more often in FOP.
At http://codeconsult.ch/wiki/index.php/FopDevelopersStyleGuide we've
got +2 vs -2 on this point, so taking into acount your opinion it's +3
vs -2 now.
I
Happy Holidays team - I've been very quiet lately but this is
*definitely* a good crowd, I wish I could spend more time here!
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL
As there is now an official Apache wiki [1], I moved the pages that
were on my server to
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?FOPProjectPages
Please do any further work on them there. They still need some cleanup
after moving, I'll do it in January unless someone finds time to do it
for skiing (assuming snow comes) for a few days, so even
quieter than usual.
--
Bertrand Delacretaz (codeconsult.ch, jfor.org)
buzzwords: XML, java, XSLT, Cocoon, FOP, mentoring/teaching/coding.
blogspace http://www.codeconsult.ch/bertrand
Peter B. West wrote:
. . .
What will be interesting here is the possibility
of defining a set of structure events for integration with the structure
renderers like RTF, and I hope we can have some fruitful discussions
with Bertrand on this.
Looks promising, let me know where to look when the
Le Vendredi, 7 mars 2003, à 17:39 Europe/Zurich, Jeremias Maerki a
écrit :
...My main motivations for the move as such:
- Easier handling of FOP in IDEs
- Best practices confirmance
- Finish what we (I) started
+0.5, the IDE thing might be useful.
As an option, we can also agree to do the same
Le Lundi, 16 juin 2003, à 02:12 Europe/Zurich, Victor Mote a écrit :
...However, I think it is appropriate to nominate Glen Mazza
for committer status
+1, welcome!
-Bertrand
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
Hi Victor,
If you're going to work on the RTFHandler I'd be happy to commit the
relevant jfor sources (the RTF library I assume) to the FOP codebase
with appropriate package name changes.
As Jeremias mentions, it might be better if I do it myself so that the
legal stuff is clear.
I should be
Hi Victor,
I have committed the classes from the jfor RTF library under
org.apache.fop.rtf.rtflib.
They don't compile out of the box, so I disabled their compilation in
build.xml for now, didn't have time to look further.
The next step would be to get them to compile, have the RTFHandler use
Le Dimanche, 22 juin 2003, à 21:15 Europe/Zurich, Arnd Beißner a écrit :
...Before we're getting too philosophical, let me say
that we're now talking two different issues:
1. Is it possible to develop a conforming XSL:FO
implementation that produces RTF or MIF or similar
ouput?
Probably not,
Le Lundi, 23 juin 2003, à 10:35 Europe/Zurich, J.U. Anderegg a écrit :
...
How do you plan to handle RTF styles?
In jfor we defined an extension to XSL-FO (the jfor-style attribute)
to control RTF styles.
Another way would be to recognize sets of attribute values in the input
XSL-FO and map
Le Lundi, 23 juin 2003, à 12:08 Europe/Zurich, J.U. Anderegg a écrit :
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
...In jfor we defined an extension to XSL-FO (the jfor-style
attribute)
to control RTF styles
(1) This is not a FOP extension, but rather a fundamental change of the
XSL-FO language, which does
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
