Re: FOText: Several obsolete methods?
Victor, thanks for digging this up. It actually surprises me and on the other side still leaves me wondering what to choose. You could say the wrong interpretation is more what a user would expect, and the right interpretation is more right. :-) Interesting to note is that a XEP trial does it "wrong" and an AltSoft trial does it "right". I'll have a look if I can change the bahaviour. On 27.05.2005 17:17:54 Victor Mote wrote: > Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > I see. Thanks for answering! Just to see what the current > > code does, I've written two testcases. It turns out that the > > issue you were working on has already been fixed in the > > meantime, provided I'm testing correctly. So I guess I'll > > remove these methods. > > WRT text-transform2.xml, you might want to look at this comment from Paul > Grosso: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xsl-editors/2005AprJun/0006.html > > It looks like your test case for text-transform="capitalize" assumes exactly > as he has documented there, i.e. that non-initial characters should be > converted to lowercase. That appears now to be incorrect, but it should be > any easy thing to fix. I was probably the one that implemented it that way > in the first place. I thought it might be easier for you to fix now, while > fresh in memory, than later. > > Victor Mote Jeremias Maerki
RE: FOText: Several obsolete methods?
Jeremias Maerki wrote: > I see. Thanks for answering! Just to see what the current > code does, I've written two testcases. It turns out that the > issue you were working on has already been fixed in the > meantime, provided I'm testing correctly. So I guess I'll > remove these methods. WRT text-transform2.xml, you might want to look at this comment from Paul Grosso: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xsl-editors/2005AprJun/0006.html It looks like your test case for text-transform="capitalize" assumes exactly as he has documented there, i.e. that non-initial characters should be converted to lowercase. That appears now to be incorrect, but it should be any easy thing to fix. I was probably the one that implemented it that way in the first place. I thought it might be easier for you to fix now, while fresh in memory, than later. Victor Mote
RE: FOText: Several obsolete methods?
Jeremias Maerki wrote: > I see. Thanks for answering! Just to see what the current > code does, I've written two testcases. It turns out that the > issue you were working on has already been fixed in the > meantime, provided I'm testing correctly. So I guess I'll > remove these methods. WRT text-transform2.xml, you might want to look at this comment from Paul Grosso: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xsl-editors/2005AprJun/0006.html It looks like your test case for text-transform="capitalize" assumes exactly as he has documented there, i.e. that non-initial characters should be converted to lowercase. That appears now to be incorrect, but it should be any easy thing to fix. I was probably the one that implemented it that way in the first place. I thought it might be easier for you to fix now, while fresh in memory, than later. Victor Mote
Re: FOText: Several obsolete methods?
I see. Thanks for answering! Just to see what the current code does, I've written two testcases. It turns out that the issue you were working on has already been fixed in the meantime, provided I'm testing correctly. So I guess I'll remove these methods. On 27.05.2005 15:38:15 Victor Mote wrote: > Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > I've just stumbled upon these two methods in FOText: > > > > createBlockPointers() > > getPrevFOTextThisBlock() > > getNextFOTextThisBlock() > > getAncestorBlock() > > > > The latter three are never referenced. I assume these could > > be removed? > > I think these were methods that I added at one time to deal with > text-transform="capitalize", the idea being to link together the contiguous > text within a given block but within different FOs. IIRC, I had this working > in HEAD at one time. If the above methods are not being used, then that > feature has probably either been removed or implemented another way. My > implementation was an ugly static-ish hack that resulted from some design > problems, and I am sure it is no great loss if it has been removed. I > obviously have no objection to you removing those methods. Here is the > message that I wrote when I left the project that documents some of this: > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107199000718911&w=2 > so you might look for the related static variable as well. > > Victor Mote Jeremias Maerki
RE: FOText: Several obsolete methods?
Jeremias Maerki wrote: > I've just stumbled upon these two methods in FOText: > > createBlockPointers() > getPrevFOTextThisBlock() > getNextFOTextThisBlock() > getAncestorBlock() > > The latter three are never referenced. I assume these could > be removed? I think these were methods that I added at one time to deal with text-transform="capitalize", the idea being to link together the contiguous text within a given block but within different FOs. IIRC, I had this working in HEAD at one time. If the above methods are not being used, then that feature has probably either been removed or implemented another way. My implementation was an ugly static-ish hack that resulted from some design problems, and I am sure it is no great loss if it has been removed. I obviously have no objection to you removing those methods. Here is the message that I wrote when I left the project that documents some of this: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107199000718911&w=2 so you might look for the related static variable as well. Victor Mote
RE: FOText: Several obsolete methods?
Jeremias Maerki wrote: > I've just stumbled upon these two methods in FOText: > > createBlockPointers() > getPrevFOTextThisBlock() > getNextFOTextThisBlock() > getAncestorBlock() > > The latter three are never referenced. I assume these could > be removed? I think these were methods that I added at one time to deal with text-transform="capitalize", the idea being to link together the contiguous text within a given block but within different FOs. IIRC, I had this working in HEAD at one time. If the above methods are not being used, then that feature has probably either been removed or implemented another way. My implementation was an ugly static-ish hack that resulted from some design problems, and I am sure it is no great loss if it has been removed. I obviously have no objection to you removing those methods. Here is the message that I wrote when I left the project that documents some of this: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107199000718911&w=2 so you might look for the related static variable as well. Victor Mote
