Re: A question about working on apache fop
Dear Simon, dear Vincent, dear FOP developers, after a lot of discussions (internally and externally), considerations and testing we finally made up our minds. We will implement a new machinery based on open-source libraries like Cairo and Pango. The engine will be written in F# using Mono/.NET. It will be a kind of .NET-XSL-FO processor. Of course FOP will be one of our sources of inspiration and I know that we have a lot of work to do in order to get equal or even better results. Best regards Martin Sievers -- Diplom-Mathematiker Martin Sievers Kompetenzzentrum für elektronische Erschließungs- und Publikationsverfahren in den Geisteswissenschaften Universität Trier Fachbereich II / Germanistik Universitätsring 15 54286 Trier Projekte: Textgrid (Printmodul) / Workspace for Collaborative Editing Raum: DM333 (3.OG B) Telefon: 0651 201-3017 Telefax: 0651 201-3589 Skype: martinsievers E-Mail: siev...@uni-trier.de http://www.kompetenzzentrum.uni-trier.de attachment: sievers.vcf
Re: The base of relative URIs in fop.xconf
Done. Simon On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 07:40:59PM +0100, Simon Pepping wrote: On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:55:25AM +, Peter Hancock wrote: Hi, When configuring the base directory using the fop.xconf relative urls are based on the working directory, and not the fop.xconf. This contradicts the URI specification as pointed out in http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Problem-with-custom-fonts-p10013042.html I hate it when applications show this bug. I was not aware that FOP suffers from it. The problem must be solved as soon as possible. Can anyone suggest a robust way of achieving this scenario, given the current limitations of FOP, or should I fix this bug? It would be wonderful if you can provide a fix. Simon
Re: The base of relative URIs in fop.xconf
Hi Simon, You beat me too it :-) I can confirm it works for a simple case I was considering. Thanks! Peter On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Simon Pepping spepp...@leverkruid.eu wrote: Done. Simon On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 07:40:59PM +0100, Simon Pepping wrote: On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:55:25AM +, Peter Hancock wrote: Hi, When configuring the base directory using the fop.xconf relative urls are based on the working directory, and not the fop.xconf. This contradicts the URI specification as pointed out in http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Problem-with-custom-fonts-p10013042.html I hate it when applications show this bug. I was not aware that FOP suffers from it. The problem must be solved as soon as possible. Can anyone suggest a robust way of achieving this scenario, given the current limitations of FOP, or should I fix this bug? It would be wonderful if you can provide a fix. Simon
