DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32201] - please, provide a manpage

DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bu

RE: FW: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 32201] - please, provide a manpage

> -Original Message- > From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- "Andreas L. Delmelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I'm not too fond of this type of arguments: > > everybody/nobody else is doing it, so why > > shouldn't/should we... > > Hey, I like that argument! For example, no other

RE: [Bug 32253] - Marker bugs

> -Original Message- > From: Andreas L. Delmelle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > That would definitely solve the second case, but still leaves the first. > Hmm.. On second thought, that would ultimately depend on: - the parent of fo:retrieve-marker - the child of fo:marker if is com

RE: [Bug 32253] - Marker bugs

> -Original Message- > From: Luca Furini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Simon Pepping wrote: Hi Luca / Simon, > > Marker extends FObjMixed, which adds InlineStackingLM. > I still have to really understand InlineStackingLM, I find it very > enigmatic! It generates inline areas, but it ha

Re: [Bug 32253] - Marker bugs

On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 02:25:02PM +0100, Luca Furini wrote: > Simon Pepping wrote: > > > Marker extends FObjMixed, which adds InlineStackingLM. This is a > > problem. In the new model there should be a strict separation between > > LMs implementing InlineLevelLM and those that do not. InlineStack

RE: [Bug 32253] - Marker bugs

> -Original Message- > From: Simon Pepping [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Simon, > ...Sorry for the inconvenience in the mean time. You must be joking! Inconvenience? Far from it. The remarks/additions so far have been very helpful. Nobody --ahem, certainly not me-- expects you to solve ev

Re: [Bug 32253] - Marker bugs

Simon Pepping wrote: > Marker extends FObjMixed, which adds InlineStackingLM. This is a > problem. In the new model there should be a strict separation between > LMs implementing InlineLevelLM and those that do not. InlineStackingLM > does not, and probably should not do. I still have to really u