Glen Mazza wrote:
Hi Glen,
OH!!!
Yes, you're right, Chris--now I see the issue. I
implemented validation for about 80% of the FOs, but
80% is not 100%. fo:table-body never had any
validation implemented, hence the NPE's that were
occurring.
I'm glad this issue has finally been resolved, tha
Thanks Simon.
Glen
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> spepping2005/03/02 13:03:25
>
> Modified:src/java/org/apache/fop/fo/flow
> TableBody.java
> TableFooter.java
> Log:
> Corrected a validation problem. Made TableFooter
> use TableBody's validation.
>
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 09:15:37PM -0800, Glen Mazza wrote:
> OH!!!
>
> Yes, you're right, Chris--now I see the issue. I
> implemented validation for about 80% of the FOs, but
> 80% is not 100%. fo:table-body never had any
> validation implemented, hence the NPE's that were
> occurring.
Yo
OH!!!
Yes, you're right, Chris--now I see the issue. I
implemented validation for about 80% of the FOs, but
80% is not 100%. fo:table-body never had any
validation implemented, hence the NPE's that were
occurring.
Sorry, Jeremias, I thought you had just gratuitously
*removed* the validatio
Simon,
Thanks for reading and responding to my concerns. I
appreciate it. Your endorsement of this change is
sufficient for me--I am withdrawing my veto.
Regards,
Glen
--- Simon Pepping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 10:21:25PM -0800, Glen Mazza
> wrote:
> >
> > Jeremia
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 10:21:25PM -0800, Glen Mazza wrote:
>
> Jeremias, I'm going to veto (-1) your change. I would
> like the content model restored to the XSL standard
> and the FONode.removeNode() method removed.
I support Jeremias' change, and vote +1.
> Technical reasons:
>
> 2.) You
Jeremias,
My veto still stands, along with the seven technical
reasons given for it.
Glen
--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 25.02.2005 07:21:25 Glen Mazza wrote:
>
>
> For the moment I'm not going to answer the veto
> itself. Your veto makes
> this situation a one against
On Feb 24, 2005, at 10:21 PM, Glen Mazza wrote:
--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have nothing more to say about this. I want to
spend my time on more
productive things now.
Jeremias, I'm going to veto (-1) your change. I would
like the content model restored to the XSL standard
and
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
On 25.02.2005 07:21:25 Glen Mazza wrote:
For the moment I'm not going to answer the veto itself. Your veto makes
this situation a one against one. I have presented my reasons for the
change and therefore, I request feedback from the rest of the committers
on this matter even
On 25.02.2005 07:21:25 Glen Mazza wrote:
For the moment I'm not going to answer the veto itself. Your veto makes
this situation a one against one. I have presented my reasons for the
change and therefore, I request feedback from the rest of the committers
on this matter even if it's just a short
--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have nothing more to say about this. I want to
> spend my time on more
> productive things now.
>
Jeremias, I'm going to veto (-1) your change. I would
like the content model restored to the XSL standard
and the FONode.removeNode() method remo
--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2. Empty
> table-bodies make no
> sense but it makes life easier for stylesheet
> writers not to have to
> work around them.
I don't see the benefits. In XSLT, one does a test to
see if there is data in the source XML that would
constitute a fo:t
FOP 0.20.5 ignores an empty table-body, no error message.
XEP 4 displays a validation error and continues.
AltSoft Xml2PDF does the same.
FOP CVS HEAD now does the same.
The justifications for both changes are in the commit message. If you
prefer a hard exception in the case of an empty table-body
--- Glen Mazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jeremias,
>
> This should not be done. If someone has a problem
> with it--and I've never heard a complaint--they can
> send an email to xsl-editors, for them to adjust the
> content model for fo:table accordingly. (If they
> don't, they don't.)
>
Jeremias,
This should not be done. If someone has a problem
with it--and I've never heard a complaint--they can
send an email to xsl-editors, for them to adjust the
content model for fo:table accordingly. (If they
don't, they don't.)
Note that the editors are very reasonable about
this--for exa
15 matches
Mail list logo
