Re: Output from NIST test suite
Hi,
in your GhostScript installation there should also exist a gswin32c.exe
which runs in console mode and therefore doesn't open a GUI window every
time.
Bye,
Bernd
On Saturday 03 January 2004 00:35, Finn Bock wrote:
> [Jeremias Maerki]
>
> I drive ghostscript with a bash script like this:
>
> for f in $*; do
> r="${f/.pdf/.png}"
> echo $f $r
> gswin32 -q -dSAFER -dBATCH -dNOPAUSE -sDEVICE=png16m \
> -sOutputFile=$r $f
> done
>
> and it is quite slow and cause the ghostscript console to flicker and
> grab the focus all the time. Annoying.
>
> Does anyone here know of a better (and maybe faster) way of using
> ghostscript to convert 615 pdf files to images?
Re: Trying to use the NIST test suite.
On Wednesday 24 December 2003 15:39, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Finn Bock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Hi, > > > > I was looking for xsl-fo test suites on the net and found > > http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/TestSuite/ > > > > but for some reason all the test in the NIST zip file uses master-name > > instead of master-reference on the fo:page-sequence's. > > > > > > Hi, > > Apparently this was admitted by earlier versions of the spec. Older > versions of FOP still supported this, but the latest version throws an > error... Hi, wouldn't it be reasonable to also accept the obsolete 'master-name' and to just print out a corresponding warning message instead of throwing an error? AFAIK, the attribute has only been renamed to 'master-reference', but its meaning and usage remained identically the same. Regards, Bernd
Re: [PATCH] doc validation fix
On Monday 13 January 2003 11:05, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > On 12.01.2003 11:40:57 Bernd Brandstetter wrote: > > After having tried to understand how fop works by just reading the > > code for a couple of hours now, FOrtress inevitably comes to my mind > > ;-) (in the sense of: Not easy to get in, at least for a newbie) > > > :-) Unfortunately, Fortress is already taken by the Apache Avalon > > project for one their new containers. I bet they wouldn't be happy to > hear your association with the name. > > Let's be serious again: What do you think could be improved to make FOP > easier to get in? Design documentation :-) When I clicked on the "Architecture" and "Design" links, I had expected a bit more than 20 to 30 lines of text. But I must admit that I have totally overlooked the "Understanding the design" section which is a bit more verbose. Still, it would be nice to have something in the style of the "Alt design" description - which I think is really great - for the "standard" design too. Regards, Bernd - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FOP logo
On Monday 13 January 2003 11:01, Oleg Tkachenko wrote: > Bernd Brandstetter wrote: > > feeling inspired by your's and Oleg's suggestions and also a little > > bit bored this Sunday afternoon, I thought I'll take the chance and > > improve my Gimping skills. Here's the result :-) > > Not bad. Something like this I meant. But (sorry for being critical, > it's art, not coding :): why it's sitting back to us. No problem :-) This was in no way meant to be a serious proposal for the logo. I've also created one with a parrot sitting with it's front to us. However, I found this one with it's impish look back over the shoulder much nicer. > F and P are too simple. Maybe. But IMHO the letters "FOP" should be easily readable and the whole logo shouldn't be too overloaded with additional stuff. > And I'm not sure about scalability - e.g. how it'll look 3cmX2cm? A vector graphic (preferrably SVG) would of course be better. However, I couldn't find a good-looking vectorized parrot clipart. Regards, Bernd - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FOP logo
On Sunday 12 January 2003 01:35, Peter B. West wrote: > Clare's designs (see previous post) were based on a quill inking in the > "P" in a large "FOP" on a page which also contained Chancery-stle text > in a smaller font. The quill was originally supposed to be a connection > with the Apache feather, but apparently that particular feather "didn't > work", and the Apache colours were too garish. Hi, feeling inspired by your's and Oleg's suggestions and also a little bit bored this Sunday afternoon, I thought I'll take the chance and improve my Gimping skills. Here's the result :-) Best regards, Bernd <>- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PATCH] doc validation fix
On Saturday 11 January 2003 20:13, Victor Mote wrote: > Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > - Do we like our current logo? :-) > > I hope I am not out of line to ask an even more fundamental question -- > do we like our current name? I never have a problem writing it, but when > speaking it, I cannot make my mouth say "fop", but invariably say > "eff-oh-pee" instead. Our root "FO" is a FOrtunate or perhaps FOrtuitous > one, as there are many English words that start with these letters, and > probably many more that contain them. FOr(r)est might have been good > (since we seem to work with trees a lot), but is taken. FOrward, FOcus, > or even FOreword might each work, or efFOrtless (). How about > FOliage (with a leaf logo)? Or perhaps a Latin word to reflect our > international crew -- FOcus (again), or FOrtis, or FOrum. I also like > Oleg's idea of throwing it out to the user community. After having tried to understand how fop works by just reading the code for a couple of hours now, FOrtress inevitably comes to my mind ;-) (in the sense of: Not easy to get in, at least for a newbie) Bye, Bernd - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
