I am wondering how/where I should put the UAX#14 code generation java
source and data files in our repository.
The obvious choice is the existing codegen directory. But it contains
all the font codegen stuff at the top level which I don't want to mix
with the Unicode stuff. So what I would
Nice work, Manuel! That will be a great addition to Fop.
I have never studied the problem in detail, so I can only give a general
opinion. But I think we should follow as closely as possible the Unicode
standard, even if that leads to behaviors incompatible with the current
one. It seems the
Manuel Mall a écrit :
I am wondering how/where I should put the UAX#14 code generation java
source and data files in our repository.
The obvious choice is the existing codegen directory. But it contains
all the font codegen stuff at the top level which I don't want to mix
with the
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 07:55:26PM +0100, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
Hi all,
Just bumped into this and started wondering: currently FObj.bind()
has public visibility, but it seems that protected would suffice. The
method is only accessed by processNode() (which is already a
protected
On Thursday 21 December 2006 18:44, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Manuel Mall a écrit :
snip/
Also I didn't get any response to the question if we could/should
store the needed Unicode data files in the Apache repository.
Where do these files come from? Have they been modified? Do they have
On Thursday 21 December 2006 18:53, Manuel Mall wrote:
On Thursday 21 December 2006 18:44, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Manuel Mall a écrit :
snip/
Also I didn't get any response to the question if we could/should
store the needed Unicode data files in the Apache repository.
Where do
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40798.
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://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40695.
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://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40695.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
Manuel,
... I changed the code generation code to accept URLs and it
can read the Unicode data files directly from the Unicode site now.
Would that work if the machine that's running fop doesn't have access to the
internet?
Or can the code also read the files from a local folder?
Regards,
On Thursday 21 December 2006 22:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Manuel,
... I changed the code generation code to accept URLs and it
can read the Unicode data files directly from the Unicode site now.
Would that work if the machine that's running fop doesn't have access
to the internet?
Or
Thank you, Manuel.
Also, this is not part of the normal build. The generated file will be
in SVN and need only be regenerated by the FOP developers if the
Unicode standard changes.
When I received the first mail, I was thinking that this was a runtime
dependency.
Regards, Jan
-
Guys,
If I'm correct the StrokeSVGText is no longer available in the new
codebase? Can I remove the paragraph [1] about it in the doc?
[1] http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/0.92/graphics.html#svg-pdf-text
Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Guys,
If I'm correct the StrokeSVGText is no longer available in the new
codebase? Can I remove the paragraph [1] about it in the doc?
Hi Vincent,
I believe you are correct. The code now makes the best decision about
whether or not the text should be stroked in
(As you can see I'm currently checking the consistency of the
documentation before releasing)
On the Upgrading page [1] it is stated that The new FOP extension for
Barcode4J will be available in January 2006. By quickly looking at the
Barcode4J I haven't found any relevant information about that
Vincent Hennebert wrote:
(As you can see I'm currently checking the consistency of the
documentation before releasing)
On the Upgrading page [1] it is stated that The new FOP extension for
Barcode4J will be available in January 2006. By quickly looking at the
Barcode4J I haven't found any
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG·
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41228.
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://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41228.
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://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41117.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND·
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
I've been working on a DataMatrix implementation for Barcode4J lately
which is partly responsible for my lack of presence here. This work is
almost finished and I plan to do an alpha release of Barcode4J 2.0 in
the first week of January 2007. When I get this off my table I have more
time left for
Right. I wanted to reintroduce it one time to get back the fallback
functionality. Just in case. Obviously, I didn't get to that...
On 21.12.2006 17:04:24 Chris Bowditch wrote:
Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Guys,
If I'm correct the StrokeSVGText is no longer available in the new
codebase?
Me, too. In that case, I'd prefer not to place the generated sources
under the build directory since this is, for me, strictly a temporary,
build-related directory.
However, a quick glance indicates that the data files are distributed
under a very liberal license [1] which would allow us to put
22 matches
Mail list logo
