Hi,
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 18.02.2008 17:04:52 Max Berger wrote:
Dear Fop Devs,
i think this was the original intention of a processing instruction.
That's another possibility, yes.
I
really do not see clearly where fox:fail-on-missing-image would go in
the fo tree.
I think an
Dear Fop devs,
On Mit, 2008-02-20 at 10:24 +, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
A PI could mean: From this point on in the whole document.
HOWEVER: If fop currently uses no PIs (I am not sure about this), then
it should be a fox: extension, to make all behavior similar.
Indeed, we don't
Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Adrian made the suggestion some time ago of using the fo:declarations
element to override configuration on a per-document basis:
[snip]
It’s not as fine-grained as a PI (no
means to say “from now on, do this”), but I share Jeremias’ feeling
about PIs.
From my
On 18.02.2008 17:04:52 Max Berger wrote:
Dear Fop Devs,
i think this was the original intention of a processing instruction.
That's another possibility, yes.
I
really do not see clearly where fox:fail-on-missing-image would go in
the fo tree.
I think an extension property/attribute was
That all sounds good. As for the extension vs. Config approach, the
config could specify the default behavior users could override it
via individual fox:image-missing-behavior (or
fox:fail-on-missing-image or something). If there's no
@fox:[image-missing-behavior] specified, it'll do the config
As for size? I'd say we use whatever's specified, or default to small
if it's floating or page width.
Clay
On 2/18/08, The Web Maestro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That all sounds good. As for the extension vs. Config approach, the
config could specify the default behavior users could override
Dear Fop Devs,
i think this was the original intention of a processing instruction. I
really do not see clearly where fox:fail-on-missing-image would go in
the fo tree. A PI could mean: From this point on in the whole document.
HOWEVER: If fop currently uses no PIs (I am not sure about this),
Thanks for the hint. I'll look into it.
On 16.02.2008 14:09:27 Andreas Delmelle wrote:
Hi all
Reason for this question is I'm trying out a test-suite that was
shared by Kumar Puppala (see a recent thread on fop-users).
The image formats are the same (PNG), and they are never present.
I would think the default should be to continue (warning in
LOG/stdout) create an empty (blank/transparent) container the size and
placement of the image.
It would be nifty if it could be a flag in the config or CLI args
giving the user the choiice to fail on missing images.
Clay
I concur
