On 03.08.2005 08:32:07 Manuel Mall wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 04:52 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > On 02.08.2005 03:18:44 Manuel Mall wrote: > ... > > > ii) Change the layout to a single column per version and indicate > > > in a single separate column at which conformance level a particular > > > FO object or property "lives" (For a sample see the XSL-FO Object > > > Support Table at http://www.arcus.com.au/fop/compliance.html). This > > > solution scales better as it is more compact but it is harder to > > > see if a particular version is conformant at a particular level. > > > > ii) should be good enough for now. > Done the layout changes, added the 1.0dev column (actually I called it > WIP until we have an agreed name for it), reinstated the colour coding > (was a CSS problem), fixed the site overall to be HTML 4.01 compliant > (Forrest skin problem).
Sounds good. Thanks a lot! "WIP" could be replaced by "Trunk" for now. > Now the next step is to actually update the compliance page with data > matching the progress in the trunk code. For the time being the 0.20.5 > and WIP compliance columns are identical. Obviously that is incorrect, > but I don't know what the compliance status of the trunk code is. > Especially active committers please advise which compliance table > entries need change and to what. If you want to start fill in stuff yourself, you could go through all the testcases in: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/test/layoutengine/testcases/ If you want to run these testcases from the command-line, you can use the testcase2fo.xsl stylesheet in the parent directory of the above. But it's no problem if you send in your changes now. I guess it will only take me about an hour to fill in the second column. I've got a pretty good overview what works and what not. > Here is the URL again: http://www.arcus.com.au/fop/compliance.html > > I also noticed that a number of objects and properties are marked as > compliant but in the comment column is a remark indicating there is a > problem with the compliance. For example: Property > "border-before-style" is marked as compliant but in the comment it says > "only "solid" works". Isn't that a partial compliance only? Shall I > update all those type of entries to "partial"? Yes, please, that sounds more reasonable. Jeremias Maerki
