DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40425.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Ok, I consider myself defeated concerning the way we handle the
configuration file (See recent threads on fop-users). The Avalon
configuration approach is very nice for the developer but obviously
bullshit in terms of end-user-friendlyness. The attempt to overlay the
configuration layout with an
On Sunday 10 September 2006 20:52, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Ok, I consider myself defeated concerning the way we handle the
configuration file (See recent threads on fop-users). The Avalon
configuration approach is very nice for the developer but obviously
bullshit in terms of
Ok, but with your statement you're carefully avoiding the topic about
how to actually validate the configuration. Are we then writing a number
of plug-ins which contain manually written code that verifies the config
file on the various levels (root, renderer, fonts)? Possible, not
difficult
We could just identify the schema in the DOCTYPE (or DTD if we decide
to go that route--a schema is much more powerful, but isn't it more
overhead?). Then, we could alter the location at will. Instead of
embedding the file in FOP, it could be located either locally
(relative to FOP or the XML
On 10.09.2006 17:01:30 The Web Maestro wrote:
We could just identify the schema in the DOCTYPE (or DTD if we decide
to go that route--a schema is much more powerful, but isn't it more
overhead?). Then, we could alter the location at will. Instead of
embedding the file in FOP, it could be
On 9/10/06, Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10.09.2006 17:01:30 The Web Maestro wrote:
On a related point, does it make sense that all configuration be
handled in one place (e.g., fonts too)?
Can you explain further what you mean?
Sorry. For some reason I thought the FONT
