RE: Throwing away code was: Re: cvs commit:
> I think that the reason resources are not forthcoming > is because of the barriers to entry that we have raised, > the largest being that, if you want to work on the code, > you really only get to work on the code that doesn't run. > For most people, that is a no starter. I think when the > trunk works reasonably well, resources will appear again. Victor, You describe my situation exactly here. I would be working on FOP development to get inline containers working right now if such work was possible to be done on the maintenance branch. However, the dynamic that any work that I contribute to the trunk might not see the light of day in the time frame of my project has restricted me to guiding my project within the limitations of the maintenance branch until I get my version 1.0 out. Then, I might be able to work on the trunk, and I'm secretly hoping that it will be in good working shape by that time. That said, I probably would have been on the redesign bandwagon were I around before, because I've got all of the qualities mentioned in that article of why programmers do that. I very much enjoyed the article, and I think it speaks a lot of wisdom that accords with what I've seen in the past. I will think twice the next time a rewrite from scratch is proposed. I certainly think it describes in spades everything that was wrong with the whole Netscape/Mozilla effort. Patrick Rusk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FOP 0.20.4 & 5rc timing w large COMMENT sections
What you and Oleg say makes perfect sense. I was not aware this could be an issue that would actually affect the rendered output, but it does. I won't be using that option anymore. Pat - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FOP 0.20.4 & 5rc timing w large COMMENT sections
I think it would be preferable to have a FOP option to output the intermediate FO file that it uses in its processing, similar to the way many compilers can output some of their intermediate files. Just today I've finally diagnosed a strangeness in my program to the fact that using FOP to transform gives a different result sometimes than doing the transform manually and following it with a FOP run on the .fo file. In my case, the difference was from having the following line in my XSL file: This is respected when doing the manual transform, but the FOP run seems to treat it as "no". I'll shortly be posting an email related to this latter issue. Patrick Rusk P.S. I think that XEP provides separate files for doing the transform followed by the rendering. I found them handy. Of course, I've created some for FOP, as I'm sure most do. -Original Message- From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 5:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FOP 0.20.4 & 5rc timing w large COMMENT sections Would you think we should put a Xalan.bat/Xalan.sh file into the FOP distribution? (or xslt.bar/xslt.sh) J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: mail clients (was: Integration of Peter's work)
For my part, I've never understood why people seem to prefer mailing lists to NTTP newsgroups. Has there ever been a discussion about moving to a newsgroup? -Original Message- From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 9:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: mail clients (was: Integration of Peter's work) It's not only about the HTML. It's also about the "In-Reply-To" and/or "References" header entry. Some mail clients have a thread view (as a tree) and not having these header entries involves attaching mails manually to the thread. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [OT] Re: Mail client
Actually, Bill Gates already tracks *all* email and sends me a nickel every time someone forwards the URL below. Thanks, Joerg! Pat -Original Message- From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 3:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [OT] Re: Mail client Hi all, you probably know I'm not very fond of certain behaviours often associated with Outlook users. However, the following has *not* been influenced by me: http://www.bbspot.com/News/2003/01/outlook.html :-) J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Feedback
I just wanted you all to know that I've been using FOP as the chief enabling technology in a product I'm building, and it has been very useful and powerful. Granted, I have to live within some of the limitations (like the blind tables business), but I've been able to get some very nice things done even so. You've done a great job. If my product finds a market[1], I should have the time in a few months to contribute to FOP's further development. I'm particularly in need of inline containers, and, of course, better keep/break handling would be nice (as if that wasn't already known). Thanks for all of your work and dedication. Patrick Rusk [1] If it doesn't find a market, I'll have to find a real job... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sun XSL Formatter
Then I retract the suggestion. Pat -Original Message- From: Tony Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 8:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Sun XSL Formatter Patrick Dean Rusk wrote at 17 Dec 2002 17:40:11 -0500: > Perhaps Tony knows better, but I have a potentially plausible explanation > for Sun being "secretive" about their project: it may not initially have > been intended for eventual open source development. In other words, it > could be a failed internal project to create a commercial product. No. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sun XSL Formatter
Perhaps Tony knows better, but I have a potentially plausible explanation for Sun being "secretive" about their project: it may not initially have been intended for eventual open source development. In other words, it could be a failed internal project to create a commercial product. Sun's history is, after all, replete with such scenarios (as anyone who watched all the best OpenStep applications get bought up and deep-sixed by Sun knows), though not all failures result in open source contributions. One hopes that the due diligence process Tony describes ascertains properly whether it is worth going down the design path already chosen by the code base, unlike, perhaps, the initial Netscape browser source contributions. Patrick Rusk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Current status of re-design
I've been following this list for a few weeks now, but I'm still unclear as to the current status of the re-design efforts. The FOP Web site's "status" page hasn't been updated since June, apparently, when the estimate of being 35% done was issued. Anyone want to take a stab at saying where things stand now. Is NewFOP able to generate any PDF files? Is there a set of formatting objects and properties that are known to work/sort of work/not work? Thank you. Patrick Rusk P.S. Last night I was up at 3:30 AM EST (US) when FOP emails started flying back and forth. I thought, "Wow! These guys are really commiteed to all be working this late." Until I realized most of you are from Europe or Australia. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: justifying text
Sergio, Is there any chance that you're trying to put the returns directly in the text, rather than delineating each paragraph as its own block? That might cause the problems you see. Patrick Rusk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Collapsing adjoining space-before/space-after pairs
As I understand the spec, if I have two blocks in succession that both have then there should only be 12 points separating them, *not* 24, since 12 points satisfied both of their requirements. Let's call that "coalescing", for lack of a better term right now. Also, in a related issue, if a block appears at the top of a column, the space-before is usually satisfied by the top margin of the page, so that vertical space should essentially be "ignored" (so long as the margin is sufficently large). In comparing some output from XEP to that from FOP, my small mind tells me that XEP is doing this as described above, but FOP does not appear to be coalescing or ignoring vertical spacing in those situations. FOP appears to be putting 24 points between the blocks, and possibly starting the blocks at the tops of columns 12 points lower than the margin. Do I understand this correctly? Is this a limitation of FOP right now? A different interpretation of the spec? A different set of default behaviors? If FOP can handle this as described, I'd be very interested to know how. Let me also add that I've generally been using the table trick for getting the "keep-with-*" and "keep-together" features to work, but I've verified that this problem happens whether I have these blocks in table rows or free-standing. Thank you. Patrick Rusk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Double-spaced source?
Do I have a line-ending problem? A lot of the FOP source files seem to be double-spaced. Is that normal? Patrick Rusk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wondering about CVS branches
I've recently started working with FOP, and I gather from this list that there are multiple CVS branches of code, in particular for the new design and for the upcoming 0.20.5. I gather from the "fop-cvs" messages that at least one of these is called "FOP_0-20-0_Alt-Design". How can I find out about all of the branch names? Which "branch" is the default trunk? The upcoming 0.20.5 maintenance release? Thank you. Patrick Rusk - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
