DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20453.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20453.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20453.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Howdy!
On 6/3/2003 8:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[INFO] FOP 0.20.4
[ERROR] null
[..]
?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8?
xsl:stylesheet version=1.0 xmlns:fo=http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format;
xmlns:nsdc=http://www.rtf2fo.com/NSDC;
xmlns:xsl=http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform;xsl:template
Clay,
you need to consider that this guy may not see your answer if he isn't
subscribed to fop-dev. You need post answers in bugzilla which will
automatically send a natification to the reporter.
BTW, it's funny. I also wondered if the xsl:include shouldn't be
top-level. But after I made his
Jeremias,
Thanks for the note! I'll POST it... BTW...
On 6/3/2003 9:09 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
BTW, it's funny. I also wondered if the xsl:include shouldn't be
top-level. But after I made his text.xsl well-formed (!) the FO got
generated just fine on my machine. Strange.
I'm guessing, that it
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20453.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
I was looking at how the Driver class initializes its
FOTreeBuilder instance with formatting object
ElementMappings. This currently occurs in three ways:
1.) Driver explicitly adds three default element
mappings (FO, SVG, FOP extension) to its FOTreeBuilder
instance
2.) Driver searches
Glen,
There is no element mapping in the push parser of alt.design, which we
are looking at integrating into the code for 1.0.
Peter
Glen Mazza wrote:
I was looking at how the Driver class initializes its
FOTreeBuilder instance with formatting object
ElementMappings. This currently occurs in
That simplifies things!--just out of curiosity, no
user-defined extension mappings either? (Not that I
was clear how those would work with the current code
anyway...)
Thanks,
Glen
--- Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glen,
There is no element mapping in the push parser of
No user defined mappings. The semantics of such mappings have to be
defined elsewhere anyway.
Extensions will have to be programmed in alongside the fo: elements and
within the processing logic.
Peter
Glen Mazza wrote:
That simplifies things!--just out of curiosity, no
user-defined extension
Jeremias,
Shouldn't we acknowledge this support on the web site?
Peter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Log:
Fix bug in WinAnsiEncoding: trademark was shown as bullet
Financed by: CTB/McGraw-Hill
--
Peter B. West http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html
There are pros and cons:
+ Might encourage other companies also to support FOP.
+ Gives credit where credit is due.
- As with the contributor's list, if we start the list now, we don't
acknowledge former contributions. And completing such a list is some
tedious work. Just missing former
I'm surprised that we haven't always acknowledged contributions, at the
option of the contributor. I suppose there are a number of questions
that arise, and I wonder if the ASF has considered this question. For
example, the Xerces and Xalan development is heavy with IBM personnel,
yet I see
14 matches
Mail list logo
