[DOC] font-variant
Hi Clay: I was looking at the compliance page on a totally unrelated topic, and noticed that the property font-variant (Sec. 7.8.8) is listed as no. When it is convenient, that should probably be changed to partial with comments similar to the following: 1. True small-caps (glyph substitution) is not supported. However, faux small-caps is supported, i.e. lower-case glyphs are shown as their corresponding upper-case glyphs, but at a smaller point size. 2. [Workaround] For fonts that have true small-caps in a separate font, true small-caps can be achieved through your stylesheet. Use a different strongfont-family/strong to point to the true small-caps font instead of using strongfont-variant/strong. It may also be worth announcing the doc change on fop-user. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Victor Mote
Re: [DOC] font-variant
Victor, On Oct 28, 2004, at 12:52 PM, Victor Mote wrote: Hi Clay: I was looking at the compliance page on a totally unrelated topic, and noticed that the property font-variant (Sec. 7.8.8) is listed as no. When it is convenient, that should probably be changed to partial with comments similar to the following: Funny you should pipe in today. Believe it or not, last night, /forrest/ actually returned a BUILD SUCCESSFUL using the current xml-fop/ (after many weeks/months? spent tweaking this and that)! More details (including pretty links to the forthcoming xml-fop web site) can be found in the ongoing Forrest thread[1] (or, now that I figured out how to use my apache.org/~clay/ web space, you could just go here[2] :-p). Unfortunately, I still have a few problems (see [1]), including a rather gaping hole in the FOP Compliance page (it doesn't show *any* content--d'oh!). I'm also working on some problems with various problems in the alt.design portion of the web site. The problems are most notably: - design/alt.design/xml-parsing.html (no content) - design/alt.design/properties/introduction.html (content but all sub-links have no content) 1. True small-caps (glyph substitution) is not supported. However, faux small-caps is supported, i.e. lower-case glyphs are shown as their corresponding upper-case glyphs, but at a smaller point size. 2. [Workaround] For fonts that have true small-caps in a separate font, true small-caps can be achieved through your stylesheet. Use a different strongfont-family/strong to point to the true small-caps font instead of using strongfont-variant/strong. It may also be worth announcing the doc change on fop-user. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Actually, if you could help me a bit to figure out what happened with the compliance page, that might help me understand more about that page, and the system used to output its rather complicated table. Thanks! Victor Mote [1] http://issues.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg? [EMAIL PROTECTED]msgNo=14876 [2] http://www.apache.org/~clay/xml-fop/ Web Maestro Clay -- Clay Leeds - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webmaster/Developer - Medata, Inc. - http://www.medata.com/ PGP Public Key: https://mail.medata.com/pgp/cleeds.asc
Re: [DOC] font-variant
Clay Leeds wrote: Unfortunately, I still have a few problems (see [1]), including a rather gaping hole in the FOP Compliance page (it doesn't show *any* content--d'oh!). I'm also working on some problems with various problems in the alt.design portion of the web site. The problems are most notably: - design/alt.design/xml-parsing.html (no content) - design/alt.design/properties/introduction.html (content but all sub-links have no content) Ah, were you perhaps hoping to eliminate these problems? It might, nonetheless, prove useful to solve them. FOP's documentation may use such methods in future. Peter
RE: [DOC] font-variant
Clay Leeds wrote: Unfortunately, I still have a few problems (see [1]), including a rather gaping hole in the FOP Compliance page (it doesn't show *any* content--d'oh!). I'm also working on some ... Actually, if you could help me a bit to figure out what happened with the compliance page, that might help me understand more about that page, and the system used to output its rather complicated table. First, I hope my comment wasn't considered a nag. I just wanted to pop that documentation change off of my stack. Second, the new web site is smokin' hot. OK. The compliance page uses a different DTD than any of the other pages: xml-fop/src/documentation/resources/schema/dtd/compliance-v10.dtd One possibility to consider is changing it to the standard format. That is probably possible, but you may have to give some things up to get it done. My recollection is that I always decided it was worth it to use the non-standard way. Also, the standard DTD may be better now than it was. A different DTD means that it must use a different stylesheet also. This is likely the crux of the problem. The process of telling Forrest/Cocoon about the compliance stylesheet is probably broken. The easiest solution is probably to ask on the Forrest user list. They were always extremely helpful in solving these problems. When I was working with Forrest, it required a decent understanding of Cocoon, but their newer versions might hide some of that. Look in one of the sitemap files (sorry -- I don't remember which one is the current one): xml-fop/src/documentation In each you'll see a section entitled FOP Additions (line 295 in sitemap.xmap, and line 257 in sitemap-0.5.xmap). That shows you the location of the stylesheets as well (there is another entry later for the to-pdf stylesheet). Find out where the equivalent sitemap for the new version is and how to mimic the logic that is here. That's about all I can think of to tell you. Good luck. Victor Mote
Re: [DOC] font-variant
On Oct 28, 2004, at 2:43 PM, Victor Mote wrote: Clay Leeds wrote: Unfortunately, I still have a few problems (see [1]), including a rather gaping hole in the FOP Compliance page (it doesn't show *any* content--d'oh!). I'm also working on some ... Actually, if you could help me a bit to figure out what happened with the compliance page, that might help me understand more about that page, and the system used to output its rather complicated table. First, I hope my comment wasn't considered a nag. I just wanted to pop that documentation change off of my stack. Not taken as such... the thought didn't even cross my mind! Second, the new web site is smokin' hot. Thanks! Perhaps we might even get this live before xmlgraphics domain goes live... OK. The compliance page uses a different DTD than any of the other pages: xml-fop/src/documentation/resources/schema/dtd/compliance-v10.dtd I saw that... [OT] Interestingly enough, the BUILD process would halt at compliance.html if I didn't have net-access and as luck would have it, when I was making this break through, my neighborhood lost power due to the Alaskan storm. hmph! One possibility to consider is changing it to the standard format. That is probably possible, but you may have to give some things up to get it done. My recollection is that I always decided it was worth it to use the non-standard way. Also, the standard DTD may be better now than it was. I'll see if I can find out more information about it on the Forrest side of things... A different DTD means that it must use a different stylesheet also. This is likely the crux of the problem. The process of telling Forrest/Cocoon about the compliance stylesheet is probably broken. The easiest solution is probably to ask on the Forrest user list. They were always extremely helpful in solving these problems. When I was working with Forrest, it required a decent understanding of Cocoon, but their newer versions might hide some of that. Look in one of the sitemap files (sorry -- I don't remember which one is the current one): xml-fop/src/documentation sorry... that one is pretty much gone. Although it's still in CVS, it must be removed in order for me to get a BUILD SUCCESSFUL. However, I might have to add a 'mini' sitemap.xmap to handle just this one item (and perhaps the other alt.design 'problems' as well). In each you'll see a section entitled FOP Additions (line 295 in sitemap.xmap, and line 257 in sitemap-0.5.xmap). That shows you the location of the stylesheets as well (there is another entry later for the to-pdf stylesheet). Find out where the equivalent sitemap for the new version is and how to mimic the logic that is here. That's about all I can think of to tell you. Good luck. Victor Mote Thanks! This is just the discussion I was hoping for! Serendipitous! Glad you 'pestered' me! ;-p Web Maestro Clay -- Clay Leeds - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webmaster/Developer - Medata, Inc. - http://www.medata.com/ PGP Public Key: https://mail.medata.com/pgp/cleeds.asc
