https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46202

Helder Magalhães <[email protected]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

--- Comment #6 from Helder Magalhães <[email protected]> 2010-10-05 
04:40:47 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The proposed changes include:
> 
>  * Reflect Java 1.3 support removed
>    * (revision 666001)
>  * Add JRE as an alternative requirement and add note for JDK regarding
> compilation
>    * (only JDK was listed as requirement in "faq.xml")
>    * (clearing JDK need for compilation, although intuitive for advanced 
> users,
> can be useful for starters)

Done in revision 1004565.


>  * Missing documentation for window.postURL
>    * (already implemented for a while, just not documented [1])
>  * Missing documentation for window.location
>    * (recently implemented [2], revisions 712954, 712955)

Done in revision 1004572.


>  * Mention Window Object [3] standard
>    * (within the scripting support, "status.xml")

Reworked to use the proper SVG 1.2 Tiny DOM interface instead.


>  * References to Batik version 1.6 changed to 1.7
>    * (although only used for example purposes, 1.7 is around for a while)

Reverted this: using 1.6 for examples is fine.


(In reply to comment #4)
> Duplicating all of the documentation for trunk vs release doesn't seem like a
> nice way to present it, IMO.  There aren't that many changes in trunk vs the
> 1.7 release anyway, so perhaps the documentation can reflect trunk
> functionality, but with notes stating if certain aspects are since the 
> release?
>  WDYT?

Added a note to the location interface stating it's available since version
1.8. ;-)


> > Apart from this, I recently stumbled at bug 43950, which could also be
> > addressed within this patch. Should it (by creating a bug dependency), or 
> > was
> > it better to create two separate patches?
> 
> If you could create a separate patch and attach it to that bug, that would be
> better I think.

That issue was (already) fixed in a separate commit. :-)

--- Comment #7 from Helder Magalhães <[email protected]> 2010-10-05 
04:40:47 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> The proposed changes include:
> 
>  * Reflect Java 1.3 support removed
>    * (revision 666001)
>  * Add JRE as an alternative requirement and add note for JDK regarding
> compilation
>    * (only JDK was listed as requirement in "faq.xml")
>    * (clearing JDK need for compilation, although intuitive for advanced 
> users,
> can be useful for starters)

Done in revision 1004565.


>  * Missing documentation for window.postURL
>    * (already implemented for a while, just not documented [1])
>  * Missing documentation for window.location
>    * (recently implemented [2], revisions 712954, 712955)

Done in revision 1004572.


>  * Mention Window Object [3] standard
>    * (within the scripting support, "status.xml")

Reworked to use the proper SVG 1.2 Tiny DOM interface instead.


>  * References to Batik version 1.6 changed to 1.7
>    * (although only used for example purposes, 1.7 is around for a while)

Reverted this: using 1.6 for examples is fine.


(In reply to comment #4)
> Duplicating all of the documentation for trunk vs release doesn't seem like a
> nice way to present it, IMO.  There aren't that many changes in trunk vs the
> 1.7 release anyway, so perhaps the documentation can reflect trunk
> functionality, but with notes stating if certain aspects are since the 
> release?
>  WDYT?

Added a note to the location interface stating it's available since version
1.8. ;-)


> > Apart from this, I recently stumbled at bug 43950, which could also be
> > addressed within this patch. Should it (by creating a bug dependency), or 
> > was
> > it better to create two separate patches?
> 
> If you could create a separate patch and attach it to that bug, that would be
> better I think.

That issue was (already) fixed in a separate commit. :-)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to