Re: Trying to use the NIST test suite.
(comments inline) On 24.12.2003 19:02:41 Clay Leeds wrote: On Dec 24, 2003, at 8:55 AM, Bernd Brandstetter wrote: On Wednesday 24 December 2003 15:39, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote: Apparently this was admitted by earlier versions of the spec. Older versions of FOP still supported this, but the latest version throws an error... wouldn't it be reasonable to also accept the obsolete 'master-name' and to just print out a corresponding warning message instead of throwing an error? AFAIK, the attribute has only been renamed to 'master-reference', but its meaning and usage remained identically the same. Regards, Bernd +1 (if non-votes count! ;-) ) Votes by committers only, but opinions from developers always count. In fact, I would love to see this considered a bugfix for the 0.20.5 maintenance release, as I believe it would help people upgrade from 0.20.4 (or lower) to 0.20.5 and higher. Backward-compatibility is always a nice thing--especially if it's as easy as this appears to be. Why? Just because the NIST test suite has never been updated to the final spec? Carmelo Montanez recently promised to fix that. The XSL-FO spec is now over two years old. I think everone can be expected to upgrade their stylesheets to XSL-FO 1.0. It simply makes no sense to keep pre-recommendation syntax around and I think we have more pressing issues in the project right now. Jeremias Maerki
Re: Trying to use the NIST test suite.
On Dec 24, 2003, at 4:03 PM, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote: wouldn't it be reasonable to also accept the obsolete 'master-name' and to just print out a corresponding warning message instead of throwing an error? AFAIK, the attribute has only been renamed to 'master-reference', but its meaning and usage remained identically the same. The latter seems preferrable as it discourages the use of properties that are undefined by the spec, while the first allows people to ignore it. If at some time they decide (for some mysterious reason) to use XEP instead of FOP, they'll receive an error anyway. Just a thought. I would think that by providing a WARNING message RE: 'master-name deprecated in favor of master-reference' or some such, that would alleviate any concerns. It would also make old files work without change (and look to the FAQ, which has much improved since Victor started looking into things... ;-p).. If however, there is some technical/challenging reason which this flies against (aghast?) then, never mind... Web Maestro Clay
Trying to use the NIST test suite.
Hi, I was looking for xsl-fo test suites on the net and found http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/TestSuite/ but for some reason all the test in the NIST zip file uses master-name instead of master-reference on the fo:page-sequence's. fo:page-sequence master-name=test-page-master Is there some kind of background story of this? To me, it seems like the tests are plain wrong here. regards, finn
RE: Trying to use the NIST test suite.
-Original Message- From: Finn Bock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I was looking for xsl-fo test suites on the net and found http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/TestSuite/ but for some reason all the test in the NIST zip file uses master-name instead of master-reference on the fo:page-sequence's. fo:page-sequence master-name=test-page-master Hi, Apparently this was admitted by earlier versions of the spec. Older versions of FOP still supported this, but the latest version throws an error... See also : http://xml.apache.org/fop/faq.html#no-page-master Is there some kind of background story of this? To me, it seems like the tests are plain wrong here. So they are indeed dead-wrong. Cheers, Andreas
Re: Trying to use the NIST test suite.
I was looking for xsl-fo test suites on the net and found http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/TestSuite/ but for some reason all the test in the NIST zip file uses master-name instead of master-reference on the fo:page-sequence's. fo:page-sequence master-name=test-page-master [Andreas L. Delmelle] Apparently this was admitted by earlier versions of the spec. Older versions of FOP still supported this, but the latest version throws an error... See also : http://xml.apache.org/fop/faq.html#no-page-master Thank you for the link, that was exactly what I was looking for. regards, finn
Re: Trying to use the NIST test suite.
On Wednesday 24 December 2003 15:39, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote: -Original Message- From: Finn Bock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi, I was looking for xsl-fo test suites on the net and found http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/TestSuite/ but for some reason all the test in the NIST zip file uses master-name instead of master-reference on the fo:page-sequence's. fo:page-sequence master-name=test-page-master Hi, Apparently this was admitted by earlier versions of the spec. Older versions of FOP still supported this, but the latest version throws an error... Hi, wouldn't it be reasonable to also accept the obsolete 'master-name' and to just print out a corresponding warning message instead of throwing an error? AFAIK, the attribute has only been renamed to 'master-reference', but its meaning and usage remained identically the same. Regards, Bernd
Re: Trying to use the NIST test suite.
On Dec 24, 2003, at 8:55 AM, Bernd Brandstetter wrote: On Wednesday 24 December 2003 15:39, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote: Apparently this was admitted by earlier versions of the spec. Older versions of FOP still supported this, but the latest version throws an error... wouldn't it be reasonable to also accept the obsolete 'master-name' and to just print out a corresponding warning message instead of throwing an error? AFAIK, the attribute has only been renamed to 'master-reference', but its meaning and usage remained identically the same. Regards, Bernd +1 (if non-votes count! ;-) ) In fact, I would love to see this considered a bugfix for the 0.20.5 maintenance release, as I believe it would help people upgrade from 0.20.4 (or lower) to 0.20.5 and higher. Backward-compatibility is always a nice thing--especially if it's as easy as this appears to be.
Re: Trying to use the NIST test suite.
HI all: I developed the NIST test suite. I will look into this issue Friday morning. Regrettably I can't dot this minute. I was under the impression that the stated problem was solved years ago. I will post something soon after Christmas. Carmelo At 03:29 PM 12/24/2003 +0100, you wrote: Hi, I was looking for xsl-fo test suites on the net and found http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/TestSuite/ but for some reason all the test in the NIST zip file uses master-name instead of master-reference on the fo:page-sequence's. fo:page-sequence master-name=test-page-master Is there some kind of background story of this? To me, it seems like the tests are plain wrong here. regards, finn
RE: Trying to use the NIST test suite.
-Original Message- From: Clay Leeds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Dec 24, 2003, at 8:55 AM, Bernd Brandstetter wrote: wouldn't it be reasonable to also accept the obsolete 'master-name' and to just print out a corresponding warning message instead of throwing an error? AFAIK, the attribute has only been renamed to 'master-reference', but its meaning and usage remained identically the same. +1 (if non-votes count! ;-) ) In fact, I would love to see this considered a bugfix for the 0.20.5 maintenance release, as I believe it would help people upgrade from 0.20.4 (or lower) to 0.20.5 and higher. Backward-compatibility is always a nice thing--especially if it's as easy as this appears to be. Yes, perhaps some solution comparable to deprecation in Java. As ( and if ) the spec evolves further, this would become a necessity anyway. ( Problem would appear if, in the future 'master-name' would be defined in a whole different way... XSL-FO doesn't provide a 'version' attribute yet, like XSLT does ) Then again, it seems hard to believe this topic has not presented itself before, and maybe it wasn't so easy after all. Since one of the primary goals of FOP is compliance with the spec, and if the spec no longer considers this property name to be valid --what's more important? Backward compatibility or compliance with (the most current version of) the spec? The latter seems preferrable as it discourages the use of properties that are undefined by the spec, while the first allows people to ignore it. If at some time they decide (for some mysterious reason) to use XEP instead of FOP, they'll receive an error anyway. Just a thought. Cheers, Andreas
