Re: FOP conformance
I think too we should do a maintenance release (from 'fop-0_20_2-maintain' branch). I volunteer to do the necessary patches, do some testing etc. Very Good!! Then I suggest you set a timetable to do the release. Tore has already committed a bunch of things. Batik has been updated to the latest cvs, this should be api compatible with the upcoming 1.1 release. Another fix is that it won't keep opening a stream for images if the image is found. The things that I can think of that need doing are: - change appropriate master-name to master-reference in code and example documents - update version number and such info Then do some testing and check that everything is in order. Big Thanks to those people for doing this. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FOP conformance
Tore Engvig wrote: [..] The simple-page-master stuff that originated the whole maintenance release and Karen's table suggestions are still left to be done (Christian?) Yes, I hope to send the patches tomorrow (tuesday) Tore - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Maintanance release (was: FOP conformance)
Keiron Liddle wrote: [..] The things that I can think of that need doing are: - change appropriate master-name to master-reference in code and example documents - update version number and such info Then do some testing and check that everything is in order. What about jfor ? I think it would be a good idea to add it with user-level integration as proposed by Betrand. Christian Geisert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Maintanance release (was: FOP conformance)
On Monday 03 December 2001 12:19, Christian Geisert wrote: What about jfor ? I think it would be a good idea to add it with user-level integration as proposed by Betrand. Depends on schedule - I'm very busy for the next two weeks, it would be hard for me to find time to do the code moving and integration, - Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FOP conformance
Cool. If there is nothing else code-wise, I'll stand by waiting to build the release itself. Arved - Original Message - From: Christian Geisert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 6:13 AM Subject: Re: FOP conformance Tore Engvig wrote: [..] The simple-page-master stuff that originated the whole maintenance release and Karen's table suggestions are still left to be done (Christian?) Yes, I hope to send the patches tomorrow (tuesday) Tore - 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: FOP conformance
I'm glad to see this will be getting done. I had thought of doing it, but I'm trying not to get distracted and to devote what little time I have (which is likely not to improve for the next two weeks unfortunately) to the new FOP. Since I'm going to be talking about XSL-FO at the XML 2001 conference in 10 days, I would have been a bit unhappy to admit that there is no version of FOP which handles the final XSL recommendation syntax. I think there are a few bug fixes and table improvements in the current maintenance branch which I committed just after 0-20.2-RC was out, and which may help some FOP users. I've also seen some recent complaints about Fop's famous looping behavior when any object won't fit on the page, including a set of spanned table rows. I think it would at least be worthwhile trying to make a set of spanning rows breakable. If Arved, Christian or someone else could look at this, I'd be happy to give a few pointers. Regards, Karen Arved Sandstrom wrote: And between me and Christian I think we will see to it that this change, at least, gets done and is reflected in a maintenance release, which I suggest should appear NLT Dec 15. In other words, I accept your argument (that was never in question). It's a resource thing...Keiron and Karen (and some others, such as Peter West) are looking at the rewrite, so it's up to the rest of us to do stuff like this. AHS - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FOP conformance
Christian Geisert wrote: [SNIP] I think too we should do a maintenance release (from 'fop-0_20_2-maintain' branch). I volunteer to do the necessary patches, do some testing etc. I just checked in some patches that's been floating around into the fop-0_20_2-maintain branch: * Raymond Penners' letter-spacing patch (with some changes to use the Tc operator in the PDF Renderer and ashow in the PSRenderer) * Marcin Kuthan's Polish Hyphenation patterns * Cristi Ruja sent a patch late august about a bug in TTFReader * My own jpeg and eps patches The simple-page-master stuff that originated the whole maintenance release and Karen's table suggestions are still left to be done (Christian?) Tore Regards, Keiron. Christian - 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: FOP conformance
On 2001.11.30 15:39 Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: At 4:48 PM -0400 11/29/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote: This was already a known thing, and Norman Walsh pointed it out also. There is simply no point in fixing this until the FOP rewrite emerges. That's your choice. However, you should realize that this is going to cause a lot of confusion for many users. It basically condemns FOP to irrelevance until the rewrite is finished. I'm personally going to have pull references to FOP out of the online XML Bible chapters and the next edition of XML in a Nutshell, and switch my own toolchains over to PassiveTeX. Although this is a small change conceptually, it is one that affects pretty much *every* XSL-FO document anyone is ever going to write. FOP has a large mindshare because it was first and because it is open source. Leaving this minor change until the rewrite is done is pretty much going to abandon the competitive advantages FOP has gained by being first. People will move to PassiveTeX, XEP, Antenna House, and other products instead. If that's OK with you, then that's your choice. Just make sure this is in fact what you want to happen. To put it another way. I could keep doing all the small things for everyone while telling them that a whole set of problems will be solved at some indefinite time in the future which keeps getting further away. This will also eventually condemn FOP to irrelevance. Doing that will also mean that other people are not able to get involved with FOP as there is a major change that needs to happen to get many things working properly. If people really insist then I can make a release soon. This will delay any other important improvements. If someone else really thinks there are things that need doing then I strongly suggest that you get busy and do them. Does anyone else have any better suggestions? I would be glad to hear them. Regards, Keiron. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FOP conformance
Keiron Liddle wrote: On 2001.11.30 15:39 Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: At 4:48 PM -0400 11/29/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote: This was already a known thing, and Norman Walsh pointed it out also. There is simply no point in fixing this until the FOP rewrite emerges. That's your choice. However, you should realize that this is going to cause a lot of confusion for many users. It basically condemns FOP to irrelevance until the rewrite is finished. I'm personally going to have pull references to FOP out of the online XML Bible chapters and the next edition of XML in a Nutshell, and switch my own toolchains over to PassiveTeX. Although this is a small change conceptually, it is one that affects pretty much *every* XSL-FO document anyone is ever going to write. [..] If someone else really thinks there are things that need doing then I strongly suggest that you get busy and do them. Does anyone else have any better suggestions? I would be glad to hear them. I think too we should do a maintenance release (from 'fop-0_20_2-maintain' branch). I volunteer to do the necessary patches, do some testing etc. Regards, Keiron. Christian - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FOP conformance
Hi All: Actually I was not implying or suggesting that you correct FOP and make it work for just the page-reference property, that will be a minor change on the great scheme of things, however if you have a number of minor things, it eventually adds up to a lot of things. On my particular case, I will be unable to take advantage of all the wonderful things FOP has to offer. It will be nice to check the tests (I think we will have thousands of tests) against various implementations. I guess my point is that even if FOP does not have those minor things at this point, maybe it can have them at some not too distant future. Greetings Carmelo Montanez - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FOP conformance
Hi, Christian That would be much appreciated. As before, I can do the actual release itself once someone has notified me (read the list) that they think the time is right. As regards the topic in general, I support Keiron 100%. The entire point of the rewrite is that during the process things are in limbo...this was well understood before, or so I thought. Making improvements to a pre-rewrite release such as FOP-0.20.2 should not use any cycles from the most productive coders we currently have on this project. IMHO. Which is why having others chip in is much appreciated. I can spare enough time to support commits to FOP-0.20.2, and minor work, since I am currently most definitely _not_ a productive coder. :-) I'd plead time pressure, which has been a major factor, but to be honest what I have really been much of this year is simply burnt out on Java. I am much less enthused about it than I was before, and for the past 2 years, after using it at work every single day (J2EE, J2ME) I hardly wanted to use it again in my own time. I say that simply so the other committers become aware of what the situation is. I have most definitely not lost interest in FOP or XSL-FO - I just need a rest from Java, rather badly. But in any case I can support minor work such as this maintenance release. I am currently working on a contract which has absolutely zero to do with Java and XML (it's SQL, C++, ASP), which is so refreshing that I cannot even begin to describe it. :-) Hopefully that'll clear my head and allow me to get back into Java coding again. Regards, Arved Sandstrom - Original Message - From: Christian Geisert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 12:27 PM Subject: Re: FOP conformance Keiron Liddle wrote: On 2001.11.30 15:39 Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: At 4:48 PM -0400 11/29/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote: This was already a known thing, and Norman Walsh pointed it out also. There is simply no point in fixing this until the FOP rewrite emerges. That's your choice. However, you should realize that this is going to cause a lot of confusion for many users. It basically condemns FOP to irrelevance until the rewrite is finished. I'm personally going to have pull references to FOP out of the online XML Bible chapters and the next edition of XML in a Nutshell, and switch my own toolchains over to PassiveTeX. Although this is a small change conceptually, it is one that affects pretty much *every* XSL-FO document anyone is ever going to write. [..] If someone else really thinks there are things that need doing then I strongly suggest that you get busy and do them. Does anyone else have any better suggestions? I would be glad to hear them. I think too we should do a maintenance release (from 'fop-0_20_2-maintain' branch). I volunteer to do the necessary patches, do some testing etc. Regards, Keiron. Christian - 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: FOP conformance
At 1:19 PM -0400 11/30/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote: As regards the topic in general, I support Keiron 100%. The entire point of the rewrite is that during the process things are in limbo...this was well understood before, or so I thought. It was understood. However, there was an implicit assumption that XSL-FO was stable enough that FOP 0.20-2 would continue to work as well as it ever had. When XSL 1.0 was released, that assumption proved to be false. That's not the fault of anybody here, just life on the bleeding edge. As other projects like DocBook start upgrading their stylesheets to support the final XSL 1.0 recommendation, then FOP stops working where it worked before. This means users need to make a decision between supporting the tools that work with XSL 1.0 and FOP. Nobody here anticipated this. Note that I am specifically talking about the change from the master-name to master-reference attribute, not the various other patches that have been submitted to 0.20-2. While useful, those patches aren't as important. The master-name/master-reference affects all XSL-FO documents, and means that FOP is totally non-functional. This is not a case of not supporting this feature in these stylesheets or that feature in those stylesheets. FOP will not produce any output when presented with an XSL 1.0 stylesheet. It cannot be used. -- +---++---+ | Elliotte Rusty Harold | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Writer/Programmer | +---++---+ | The XML Bible, 2nd Edition (Hungry Minds, 2001) | | http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/ | | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/ | +--+-+ | Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ | | Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/ | +--+-+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FOP conformance
And between me and Christian I think we will see to it that this change, at least, gets done and is reflected in a maintenance release, which I suggest should appear NLT Dec 15. In other words, I accept your argument (that was never in question). It's a resource thing...Keiron and Karen (and some others, such as Peter West) are looking at the rewrite, so it's up to the rest of us to do stuff like this. AHS - Original Message - From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 12:47 PM Subject: Re: FOP conformance At 1:19 PM -0400 11/30/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote: As regards the topic in general, I support Keiron 100%. The entire point of the rewrite is that during the process things are in limbo...this was well understood before, or so I thought. It was understood. However, there was an implicit assumption that XSL-FO was stable enough that FOP 0.20-2 would continue to work as well as it ever had. When XSL 1.0 was released, that assumption proved to be false. That's not the fault of anybody here, just life on the bleeding edge. As other projects like DocBook start upgrading their stylesheets to support the final XSL 1.0 recommendation, then FOP stops working where it worked before. This means users need to make a decision between supporting the tools that work with XSL 1.0 and FOP. Nobody here anticipated this. Note that I am specifically talking about the change from the master-name to master-reference attribute, not the various other patches that have been submitted to 0.20-2. While useful, those patches aren't as important. The master-name/master-reference affects all XSL-FO documents, and means that FOP is totally non-functional. This is not a case of not supporting this feature in these stylesheets or that feature in those stylesheets. FOP will not produce any output when presented with an XSL 1.0 stylesheet. It cannot be used. -- +---++---+ | Elliotte Rusty Harold | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Writer/Programmer | +---++---+ | The XML Bible, 2nd Edition (Hungry Minds, 2001) | | http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/ | | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/ | +--+-+ | Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ | | Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/ | +--+-+ - 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: FOP conformance
Tell me where to look, and I'll take a crack at it. I ran into this while trying to use FOP, and switched to the simple-page-master to make it work. Thanks Scott Sanders -Original Message- From: Arved Sandstrom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 10:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FOP conformance And between me and Christian I think we will see to it that this change, at least, gets done and is reflected in a maintenance release, which I suggest should appear NLT Dec 15. In other words, I accept your argument (that was never in question). It's a resource thing...Keiron and Karen (and some others, such as Peter West) are looking at the rewrite, so it's up to the rest of us to do stuff like this. AHS - Original Message - From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 12:47 PM Subject: Re: FOP conformance At 1:19 PM -0400 11/30/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote: As regards the topic in general, I support Keiron 100%. The entire point of the rewrite is that during the process things are in limbo...this was well understood before, or so I thought. It was understood. However, there was an implicit assumption that XSL-FO was stable enough that FOP 0.20-2 would continue to work as well as it ever had. When XSL 1.0 was released, that assumption proved to be false. That's not the fault of anybody here, just life on the bleeding edge. As other projects like DocBook start upgrading their stylesheets to support the final XSL 1.0 recommendation, then FOP stops working where it worked before. This means users need to make a decision between supporting the tools that work with XSL 1.0 and FOP. Nobody here anticipated this. Note that I am specifically talking about the change from the master-name to master-reference attribute, not the various other patches that have been submitted to 0.20-2. While useful, those patches aren't as important. The master-name/master-reference affects all XSL-FO documents, and means that FOP is totally non-functional. This is not a case of not supporting this feature in these stylesheets or that feature in those stylesheets. FOP will not produce any output when presented with an XSL 1.0 stylesheet. It cannot be used. -- +---++---+ | Elliotte Rusty Harold | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Writer/Programmer | +---++---+ | The XML Bible, 2nd Edition (Hungry Minds, 2001) | | http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/ | | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/ | +--+-+ | Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ | | Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/ | +--+-+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: FOP conformance
This was already a known thing, and Norman Walsh pointed it out also. There is simply no point in fixing this until the FOP rewrite emerges. Arved Sandstrom - Original Message - From: Carmelo Montanez To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 4:14 PM Subject: FOP conformance Hi all: Anyone aware of how FOP 0.20.2 conforms to the latest XSL recommendations of October of this year?, I am writing some conformance tests for the latest specifications and FOP complains about fo:page-sequence master-reference = "some-master-reference" /fo:page-sequence it complains about "master-reference", which used to be "master-name" on the previous version. Thanks, Carmelo Montanez
