https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49849
Summary: PDF links do only support ISO encoding
Product: Fop
Version: all
Platform: PC
OS/Version: All
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Comp
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49849
--- Comment #1 from maximilian.as...@boc-eu.com 2010-08-31 05:32:47 EDT ---
Created an attachment (id=25963)
--> (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25963)
test case
Test case with some polish characters
--
Configure bu
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49849
--- Comment #2 from maximilian.as...@boc-eu.com 2010-08-31 05:33:51 EDT ---
Created an attachment (id=25964)
--> (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25964)
patch to utf-8
Changes the encoding to UTF-8
--
Configure bugma
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49849
maximilian.as...@boc-eu.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Reso
Simon Pepping wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 01:23:12PM -, vhenneb...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: vhennebert
>> Date: Fri Aug 27 13:23:11 2010
>> New Revision: 990144
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=990144&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Fixed indentation
> In the output or in the source fil
Hi,
I just thought I would homogenize our usage of todo tags and match what
seems to be the de facto standard (“TODO”) among current committers.
Most @todo indeed come from very old commits. I didn’t realise that
javadoc could do something with them, which is why that looked to me
like a minor cha
I don't have a strong opinion on whether to keep the @asf.todo or TODO. My
main interest was removing the javadocs warnings produced (under jdk1.6
doclet) through the former use of @todo.
My point in bringing it up was to request that we discuss beforehand
prospective changes that back-out or reve
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49849
Vincent Hennebert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FI
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49849
Vincent Hennebert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|PDF links do only support |[PATCH] PDF links do only
Hi Glenn,
A dedicated class with meaningful fields (e.g., xPlacement, xAdvance)
would probably be preferable to an array of 4 int. This would be safer
and easier to understand and use.
For the rest, that sounds good.
Vincent
Glenn Adams wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I'd like to mention a change I will
Thanks, that's a good suggestion. I've been contemplating that for a while
now.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:24 PM, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Hi Glenn,
>
> A dedicated class with meaningful fields (e.g., xPlacement, xAdvance)
> would probably be preferable to an array of 4 int. This would be safer
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49855
Summary: Non ASCII characters are not rended in PDF
Product: Fop
Version: all
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Windows XP
Status: NEW
Severity: major
Priority: P2
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49855
Glenn Adams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
13 matches
Mail list logo