Bertrand Delacretaz wrote
The whole point of the StructureHandler interface is to be able to
reuse FOP's frontend for structure-based renderers.
The impact of StructureHandler on the standard FOP output formats
(PDF mostly) is minor, but it allows the FOP pipeline to branch
cleanly, after
Le Lundi, 23 juin 2003, à 10:35 Europe/Zurich, J.U. Anderegg a écrit :
...
How do you plan to handle RTF styles?
In jfor we defined an extension to XSL-FO (the jfor-style attribute)
to control RTF styles.
Another way would be to recognize sets of attribute values in the input
XSL-FO and map
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
...
How do you plan to handle RTF styles?
In jfor we defined an extension to XSL-FO (the jfor-style attribute)
to control RTF styles.
I think some form of extension is needed as (AFAIK) the concept of
styles does not exist in XSL-FO, as it is meant for printed
Le Lundi, 23 juin 2003, à 12:08 Europe/Zurich, J.U. Anderegg a écrit :
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
...In jfor we defined an extension to XSL-FO (the jfor-style
attribute)
to control RTF styles
(1) This is not a FOP extension, but rather a fundamental change of the
XSL-FO language, which does
Nice idea, but there's a problem. The xsl namespace gets filtered out by
the XSLT engine, or IOW expanded to the FO attributes before they reach
FOP. FOP never sees anything with the xsl: prefix.
On 23.06.2003 18:51:45 Clay Leeds wrote:
Forgive my intrusion, and perhaps this is not related, or
On 6/23/2003 10:19 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Nice idea, but there's a problem. The xsl namespace gets filtered out by
the XSLT engine, or IOW expanded to the FO attributes before they reach
FOP. FOP never sees anything with the xsl: prefix.
Does this mean that just about every fo:block in the
On 23.06.2003 19:33:23 Clay Leeds wrote:
On 6/23/2003 10:19 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Nice idea, but there's a problem. The xsl namespace gets filtered out by
the XSLT engine, or IOW expanded to the FO attributes before they reach
FOP. FOP never sees anything with the xsl: prefix.
Does
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Speaking of which, how does the file created by '-at' differ from the
file generated by running xalan.bat?
That's the Area Tree XML: The layouted pages serialized to a proprietary
XML format. It's only interesting for debugging purposes (in layout
engine development).
And
Peter B. West wrote:
Bertrand is probably in the best position to comment wrt RTF. Is anyone
familiar with MIF. Does it simply define page structures and flows?
I'm roughly familiar with MIF - did some rough HTML to MIF conversion
years ago.
Basically MIF is structured text that is
--- Arnd Beißner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Q
If you need a clear differentiation between the
renderer types, you might take this one: do I need to
know the size of a glyph in a certain font/size to
produce the output? If yes, the appropriate renderer
goes into FOP, if not, it goes into a separate
Glen Mazza wrote:
So the XSL-FO spec--which FOP is trying to implement
for as many output types as possible--is not relevant
for those output types which don't need to know glyph
size? By putting it into a separate tool, that is
what you may be implying.
In a way, that's true. You need
--- Arnd Beißner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glen Mazza wrote:
So the XSL-FO spec--which FOP is trying to
implement
for as many output types as possible--is not
relevant
for those output types which don't need to know
glyph
size? By putting it into a separate tool, that is
what you
Glen Mazza wrote:
We don't do HTML at all (Xalan's department)-- HTML is
browser dependent. HTML is not an output format.
I know, the purpose was to illustrate my point, since
everyone is familiar with HTML, but perhaps not with
MIF or RTF. If you think it makes sense for FOP to
output RTF,
Arnd Beissner wrote:
determined a formatting-time if you can't hand over the
Correction, this typo can be misleading:
determined at formatting-time if you can't hand over the
--
Cappelino Informationstechnologie GmbH
Arnd Beißner
Bahnhofstr. 3, 71063 Sindelfingen, Germany
Email: [EMAIL
Le Dimanche, 22 juin 2003, à 21:15 Europe/Zurich, Arnd Beißner a écrit :
...Before we're getting too philosophical, let me say
that we're now talking two different issues:
1. Is it possible to develop a conforming XSL:FO
implementation that produces RTF or MIF or similar
ouput?
Probably not,
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 20.06.2003 21:23:50 Glen Mazza wrote:
If it does, it determines *which* type
of area tree to create (Structure or MIF or the other
one)--based again on the render_type. The business
logic for this would be in FOTreeBuilder.
But no area tree is generated when a
16 matches
Mail list logo
