I'm a bit confused... Am I correct that this [VOTE] relates to merging the Temp_URI_Unification to fop/trunk and not to FOP-1.1rc*? If so, then +1 and if not then +0 since I don't quite understand... (not blocker, but not enough info for me to +1... ;-)
Kind regards, Clay Leeds -- <the.webmaes...@gmail.com> - <http://ourlil.com/> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness. - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Chris Bowditch <bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 04/07/2012 17:15, Glenn Adams wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:25 AM, mehdi houshmand <med1...@gmail.com >> <mailto:med1...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On 4 July 2012 12:32, Vincent Hennebert <vhenneb...@gmail.com >> <mailto:vhenneb...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> There does seem to be a regression. Before, the >> FopFactoryConfigurator >> object was getting the strict-validation element from the >> config file >> and calling FopFactory.setStrictValidation if it was set to >> true. This >> is no longer the case. >> >> I’ve just tried to render a table with table-footer after >> table-body, >> and now a validation error is thrown even if I have >> strict-validation >> set to false in my config file. No validation error was thrown >> before. >> >> >> I've fixed the underlying issue but this is an interesting one; it >> isn't obvious that settings from the fop conf override the >> settings from the command line options. (Pete probably wrote this >> part hahaha ;) ) >> >> >> They shouldn't. Command line options should override the conf file. >> > > Agreed, but IIUC, the team just copied the existing functionality due to > time constraints. We should probably log a bug to track that as an issue. > > Thanks, > > Chris > >
