-Original Message-
From: Victor Mote [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Hi guys,
(Just catching up on the postings of the last few days, this one caught my
eye...)
although I'm still a bit concerned that you based your PDF
part on the maintenance branch code
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
Victor, IIC, Jeremias' concern is about the PDF lib in HEAD
containing substantial improvements over the code in the
maintenance branch. One aspect that springs to mind is WRT
encryption support --as I recall, maintenance still had some
problems with this, for
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
from the website I don't quite get the scope of the project.
That might have to be made clearer. Anyway, I didn't want to
Yes, just as soon as it is totally clear to me :-) Right now, it boils down
to here are some things that I think could/should be shared, can
Ah, now I'm starting to see where this is going. I think this something
extremely difficult to do. To a certain degree it sounds like my
ideas/plans for the XML Graphics project, namely to separate certain
peripheral components (fonts, PDF lib, Graphics2D implementations etc.)
from FOP so efforts
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Ah, now I'm starting to see where this is going. I think this
something extremely difficult to do. To a certain degree it
Agreed.
sounds like my ideas/plans for the XML Graphics project,
namely to separate certain peripheral components (fonts, PDF
lib, Graphics2D
Finn Bock wrote:
Do you mean that the 3 different processors should ideally
report the same validation errors in the same manner? That
can only happen after someone standardize a SAFO API (Simple
API for FO parsing). Until then all implementation will throw
different exceptions, which is
I am impressed by your seemingly boundless dedication
to XSL and its related fields.
Glen
--- Victor Mote [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I actually toyed with this idea about two weeks ago.
IIRC, the SAFO name is
already taken, but at the time I registered the
axsl.org domain, and I
finally went
Victor Mote wrote:
Finn Bock wrote:
Do you mean that the 3 different processors should ideally
report the same validation errors in the same manner? That
can only happen after someone standardize a SAFO API (Simple
API for FO parsing). Until then all implementation will throw
different
Victor,
from the website I don't quite get the scope of the project. That might
have to be made clearer. Anyway, I didn't want to talk about it just yet,
because it's not ready, but recently I started writing a JAXP-like API
for XSL-FO processors (I called in JAFOP for now). It basically
-Original Message-
From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Would anyone expect that Defoe would
subclass SAXException for document validation errors? If not (it
doesn't), why not?
Yes, if you use a SAX parser, why not? My point is that at the top-level, no
SAXExceptions
10 matches
Mail list logo
