On Mon, 2002-07-29 at 17:52, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> I'd go for 2.2 as this avoids having to maintain two RTF document libraries
> (jfor and FOP) during the transition. I think that's what Chris Scott is
> working on, but I haven't seen his code or design yet, hence my request to
> him for
Hello Hansuli,
Here's my point of view regarding FO to RTF
> FO to RTF
>
> 1. Requirements:
Integrate the existing jfor code (www.jfor.org) into FOP so that FOP can
become a better XSL-FO to RTF converter than jfor currently is.
> 2 Candidate solutions
2.1 move all jfor code in the FOP codeb
Hi Chris,
On Tuesday 23 July 2002 15:52, Christopher Scott wrote:
> I have been working on a few driver classes for FOP.
>. . .
> Expect a submission in a week or two.
>. . .
Would it be possible for you to submit (probably unfinished) code earlier,
rather than waiting for it to be finished ?
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
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 wordprocessor
> RTF is the format of yesterday: better generate MicroSoft Office XML or
Open
> Office XML.
I agree. I very much dislike RTF as a markup language. It is cumbersome,
limited, verbose, awkward and terribly outdated. But RTF is a widely used
standard, whose format is recognized by many lagacy pr
Ramana,
To all that Keiron has said, I would add:
Talk to Bertrand Delacrétaz<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, who is our
resident RTF guru, and lead developer of jfor. Having said that, I
notice that Chris Scott, who has also posted on this thread, has also
contributed to jfor.
The first step, it seems
.
Chris Scott
- Original Message -
From: Keiron Liddle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: FOP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 8:20 AM
Subject: RE: FO to RTF
> Hi Ramana,
>
> Firs thing would be to decide on where to put the code eg.
> org.apache.fop.rtf.*
Hi Ramana,
Firs thing would be to decide on where to put the code eg.
org.apache.fop.rtf.*
It would appear that this area hasn't been documented much (there are
some emails).
A summary:
- these types of formats (RTF, MIF) do not need the layout process
- there is a StructureHandler that receive
I'm a newbie.
Ramana.
-Original Message-
From: Keiron Liddle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 4:55 PM
To: FOP
Subject: Re: FO to RTF
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 05:41, Keen Tim wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The FOP documentation suggests that the RTF renderer will b
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 05:41, Keen Tim wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The FOP documentation suggests that the RTF renderer will be integrated
> soon. When might we expect this to happen?
I'm not sure when this will happen. We seem to be stalled at the moment.
I think we just need to get the ball rolling to
; "";
> else
> os() << char(filename[i]);
>}
>os() << "\" }{\\fldrslt }}";
>}
>return 1;
> }
> return 0;
> }
>
> The part you may be interested in is:
>
> while((buf = fgetc(i
lename[i] == '\\')
os() << "";
else
os() << char(filename[i]);
}
os() << "\" }{\\fldrslt }}";
}
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
The part you may be interested in is:
while((buf = fgetc(inFile)) != EOF)
i'm also looking for it. i'm a student working on this RTF converter. do
you know anything about OLE? i want to try embedding a bmp image into
RTF to see if it works, but i've found there's something more than that.
what i mean is there seems to be some more hex data apart from the
proper bmp data
14 matches
Mail list logo
