On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 03:40 am, Simon Pepping wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 08:15:47AM +0800, Manuel Mall wrote:
> linefeed-treatment is a local operation on a single character.
>
Yes
> white-space-collapse does not cross FO boundaries because the spec
> limits this to sibling character FOs.
>
Y
+1
Simon
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 09:14:12PM +0100, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> This is it. Just to make it clear again: This is a a release vote and
> therefore a PMC vote, but every FOP committer is invited to place his
> vote or raise any objections. Noone gets ignored. Although fop-dev is in
> th
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 08:15:47AM +0800, Manuel Mall wrote:
> I have no problems with the suggestion to move the white space handling
> from Block into its own class so other fo's that need it can make use
> of it.
>
> However, I still need to be convinced that pushing it down to inline
> leve
"Luca Furini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Manuel Mall wrote:
Not sure what other committers and the PMC think but as a vote on the
release has started I would suggest no further changes to the codebase
unless agreed?
What I am saying is - by all means do the development but don't put it
back
On Nov 16, 2005, at 11:51, Luca Furini wrote:
There are other properties with a "validity range" and a fallback
value: column-count, initial-page-number, column-number, number-
columns-repeated, number-columns-spanned, number-rows-spanned,
hyphenation-{push, remain}-character-count; only h
While working on the implementation of hyphenation-ladder-count, I noticed
that at the moment the property system can return "illegal" values
coming from the fo file instead of the "fallback" value defined by the
specs.
There are significant differences in wording between XSL 1.0 and 1.1: for
Well, my fault. I didn't so much follow the whole whitespace discussion
to know every detail. I assumed there was some kind of consensus by now.
On 16.11.2005 11:15:48 Chris Bowditch wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>
> > Sounds like a good plan to me. Would you go after that?
>
> Jeremias: I hav
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Sounds like a good plan to me. Would you go after that?
Jeremias: I have similar concerns to Manuel about this. Moving the
handleWhitespace method to a different class is probably okay, but I
don't think we should start making any major changes to Whitespace
handling
Manuel Mall wrote:
Not sure what other committers and the PMC think but as a vote on the
release has started I would suggest no further changes to the codebase
unless agreed?
What I am saying is - by all means do the development but don't put it
back into svn until after the release.
Ok, t
