Re: Documentation finished

On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 02:04:30PM -0700, Glen Mazza wrote: > On second thought, I would hold off on this; I just > noticed you copywrited the document under your name; > hence it would probably be improper to include the > current FOP system documentation from Keiron/Kelly or > other former/curren

Re: Documentation finished

--- Simon Pepping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 02:31:27PM -0700, Glen Mazza > wrote: > > Before doing so, it would probably be good if you > > could look at our System design pages > > (http://xml.apache.org/fop/design/index.html), if > you > > haven't already, and add to yo

Re: Documentation finished

On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 02:31:27PM -0700, Glen Mazza wrote: > Before doing so, it would probably be good if you > could look at our System design pages > (http://xml.apache.org/fop/design/index.html), if you > haven't already, and add to your document anything > from them that is still relevant and

Re: Documentation finished

Hi Clay, On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 11:54:10AM -0700, Clay Leeds wrote: > Looks pretty good. As you indicated, there are a few areas to be > improved (e.g., 'TO BE IMPROVED" and 'no data' sections), and some I spent quite some time to this documentation. The chapter on properties took quite a bit

Re: Documentation finished

Great, this makes for an excellent system design document that we can refine over time. I'm also happy you have it done in Docbook. We're doing it right the first time that way. I'd like to see it incorporated, in Docbook format, on our site. Tapestry has already managed Forrest and Docbook tog

Re: Documentation finished

On Jun 28, 2004, at 11:25 AM, Simon Pepping wrote: Hi, I finished my documentation of the FOP architecture and code. Well, more or less; this is version 0.9. Maybe I'll add a short introduction or some such. See http://www.leverkruid.nl/FOP/index.html. Looks pretty good. As you indicated, there are

Re: Documentation conventions

Jeremias Maerki wrote: I know I'm getting troublesome, but here's another observation. On our website we have at least 3 different ways to mention our beloved "Extensible Stylesheet Language Formatting Objects": - XSL:FO (I'm guilty of using this in the past) - XSL-FO - FO (each in upper- and low

Re: Documentation conventions

Ah, yes, and it's FOP, not Fop, I believe. :-) Jeremias Maerki - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Documentation woes

Joerg Pietschmann wrote: Hi all, I think there are still some problems with regard to our documentation. 1. There is a src/documentation/content/design/alt.design with some HTML files 2. There's also a src/documentation/content/xdocs/design/alt.design with some more XML files 3. Furthermore th

Re: documentation

On Thu, 2002-10-10 at 00:00, J.Pietschmann wrote: > Christian Geisert wrote: > > Ok. IMHO the next step should be the migration of the current docs > > to forrest (Joerg?) > > Migration to forrest DTDs. I seem to have lost track of recent changes, > and I'm still unwilling to force everyone to use

Re: documentation

Victor Mote schrieb: > Christian Geisert wrote: [..] > Well, in the meantime, unless my patch or approach messes up Joerg's work > somehow, it seems reasonable to do what we can with what we have. I tried to apply your patch but it failed (no time to analyse). Maybe someone else can have a look

RE: documentation

Christian Geisert wrote: > Forrest offers one PDF per page at the moment > (see http://outerthought.net/forrest/ for example) One PDF per page is fine, but it is inconvenient to download or print the whole. > > Item 1: The 0.20.4 release does not seem to have the fo.pdf > file included, > > pro

Re: documentation

Christian Geisert wrote: > Ok. IMHO the next step should be the migration of the current docs > to forrest (Joerg?) Migration to forrest DTDs. I seem to have lost track of recent changes, and I'm still unwilling to force everyone to use forrest, which includes Cocoon, simply to build the docs, wh

Re: documentation

Victor Mote schrieb: > FOP Developers: > > I submitted a patch (through Bugzilla, for trunk) that fixes some problems > in the pdfdoc build. I realize that Joerg is doing some work in that area as > well, and I don't mean to step on any of that, but I am not sure exactly > what that work involves

RE: documentation

Victor Mote wrote: > Item 3: This is really a question about content organization. I would like > to split the documentation into two groups, user and developer, and in > addition to the document mentioned above, generate an "FOP Developer > Documentation" pdf. This would involve pulling some of

Re: [DOCUMENTATION] Re: [Understanding] Layout Managers [10.0]

Going for the record on the worlds slowest commit :/ I have put this in cvs now. Thanks for you patience. Keiron. On Fri, 2002-04-26 at 17:21, Cyril Rognon wrote: > oops > > Sorry for those who receive this twice, > > I have already sent this message but I have forgotten the DOCUMENTATION >

Re: documentation for the maintenance branch

Christian Geisert wrote: > Please wait till after the release. Ok, most issues are solved now, I'll commit it to HEAD this weekend, not that the release is out. J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For add

Re: documentation for the maintenance branch

Joerg Pietschmann schrieb: [..] > That's exactly what I'm currently doing, the HTML and the > intermediate document-DTD files are produced in the build > directory. Unfortunately, as I already noted, it's an > all-or-nothing thing unless you are comfortable with broken > doc builds for some time

Re: documentation for the maintenance branch

J.Pietschmann schrieb: [..] > The last checkin showed a "generate commit notification mail" > or something, but I didn't get one either. AFAIK your commit mail needs to be approved once. Best thing would be to ask root. > J.Pietschmann Christian -

Re: documentation for the maintenance branch

Joerg, Joerg Pietschmann wrote: > "Peter B. West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Obviously there is a need for some documention with normal releases. We >>don't need the design docs in the user releases, but all of the >>operational material, including the FAQs, is necessary. >> >>If we were

Re: documentation for the maintenance branch

On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 14:39, Joerg Pietschmann wrote: > +1 on omitting the design doc completely in bin distributions. > Should probably omit skin source and xsl too. +1 also. > I'm not sure about PDF, apparently there are not much requests > for this format. > What's larger: > - PDF > - xdocs +

Re: documentation for the maintenance branch

"Peter B. West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Obviously there is a need for some documention with normal releases. We > don't need the design docs in the user releases, but all of the > operational material, including the FAQs, is necessary. > > If we were to do source and compiled releases, th

Re: documentation for the maintenance branch

Fopdevs, Obviously there is a need for some documention with normal releases. We don't need the design docs in the user releases, but all of the operational material, including the FAQs, is necessary. If we were to do source and compiled releases, the xml-docs could go into the source releas

Re: documentation for the maintenance branch

Jeremias Maerki wrote: > We're not really in a hurry, are we? I thought we are... The problem is that DTD and XSL of all documents has to be in sync, a partial commit breaks things :( > If it makes life simpler: +1. The only question arises when we're coming > to the point when we're starting wit

Re: [DOCUMENTATION] diffs for files in design/alt.design

Peter, This has been committed to cvs. Thanks. On 2002.03.27 03:49 Peter B. West wrote: > Arved or Keiron, > > Attached are diffs for xml-fop/docs/design/alt.design/alt.properties.xml > and xml-fop/docs/design/alt.design/book.xml. > > A previous email included new files for the design/alt.des

Re: [DOCUMENTATION] design/alt.design new files [2 of 2]

From: "Peter B. West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Attached are new files for the xml-fop/docs/design/alt.design directory. Gee, this is cool! :-) -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains

Re: Documentation volunteer?

Cyril Rognon wrote: > Peter, > > I would gladly start this, but I have not found any docs nor htmldocs > target in the build.xml The current documentation is in the cvs main branch, so you need to do a cvs checkout (see http://xml.apache.org/cvs.html). Then you can do a 'build htmldoc'. > Th

Re: Documentation volunteer?

Peter, I would gladly start this, but I have not found any docs nor htmldocs target in the build.xml I have started to decorate Keiron's "Understanding series" following the sample xml files that can be found in the xmldocs directory but I would like to test it now. any clue ? By the way, i

Re: Documentation on SAX parsing and modularisation

Listners, I have added some details of the XMLEvent buffer access methods to the above documentation. Peter - To unsubscribe, e-mail