On 05.07.2010 17:13:32 Simon Pepping wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 03:05:56PM -, spepp...@apache.org wrote:
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=960618&view=rev
> > Log:
> > First changes for the release, mainly documentation changes
> >
> > Modified:
> > xmlgraphics/fop/branches/fop-1_0/NOTICE
> > xmlgraphics/fop/branches/fop-1_0/README
> > xmlgraphics/fop/branches/fop-1_0/build.xml
> > xmlgraphics/fop/branches/fop-1_0/fop.bat
> >
> > xmlgraphics/fop/branches/fop-1_0/src/documentation/content/xdocs/compliance.ihtml
> >
> > xmlgraphics/fop/branches/fop-1_0/src/documentation/content/xdocs/dev/release.xml
> >
> > xmlgraphics/fop/branches/fop-1_0/src/documentation/content/xdocs/download.xml
> >
> > xmlgraphics/fop/branches/fop-1_0/src/documentation/content/xdocs/index.xml
> >
> > xmlgraphics/fop/branches/fop-1_0/src/documentation/content/xdocs/site.xml
> > xmlgraphics/fop/branches/fop-1_0/status.xml
>
> In README: Is the list of included files without the ASL2 complete?
It is now, I believe.
> In README: Check the list of major changes which I picked from all
> changes in status.xml.
Added the missing event handling framework.
> In index.html and trunk/output.html: output formats: I changed PNG to
> PNG/TIFF. Is TXT still a - to a lesser extent - supported output
> format?
Until there's a major change in the AreaTree XML, text output works just
fine. At least we get a question about it here and there so it is in
use.
> In index.html, last paragraph: I changed XML 1.0 to XML 1.1 and XSLT
> 1.0 to XSLT 1.0 and 2.0.
XSL-FO 1.1 mentions both XML 1.0 and 1.1. I've changed index.html
accordingly. I'm still using XML 1.0 exclusively.
> In compliance, I kept only 0.95, 1.0 and trunk. This caused extensive
> changes to comments.
I guess keeping track of various versions on the website is one of the
biggest issues why doing FOP releases is so hard. I keep wondering if we
should not transform the actual product information to DocBook. But that,
too, takes a lot of (initial) work.
Jeremias Maerki
