On 09/04/12 15:47, Glenn Adams wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Clay Leeds wrote:
>
>> On Apr 8, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Glenn Adams wrote:
>>
>> Yes, we'd lose the XML-based nature of the documentation. That's a fairly
>>> large loss, but I don't know if that's a showstopper, considering the
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50492
--- Comment #3 from az7...@googlemail.com 2012-04-12 10:03:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 28590
--> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28590
Short program to show that the glyph is not avaiable
--
Configure bugmail: http
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50492
--- Comment #4 from az7...@googlemail.com 2012-04-12 10:04:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 28591
--> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28591
Small example fo-file
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50492
--- Comment #5 from az7...@googlemail.com 2012-04-12 10:04:43 UTC ---
Created attachment 28592
--> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28592
Generated pdf-file from fopglyphs.fo
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apach
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50492
--- Comment #6 from az7...@googlemail.com 2012-04-12 10:05:11 UTC ---
Created attachment 28593
--> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28593
log-output during the generation
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.or
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50062
Chris Bowditch changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
On 12/04/2012 10:09, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Hi Vincent,
My preference is to keep things as simple as possible. If keeping the
docs in xdoc format complicates the publishing process, then I’m not in
favour of it.
In particular, I’d like to remove the dependency on Forrest. Publishing
with Forr
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Chris Bowditch
wrote:
>
> Thanks for explaining. Based on the above I agree keeping xdocs seems
> overkill. I'm happy to move to markdown if that is the best alternative.
> Are there any options?
>
Agreed that removing forrest dependency is desirable. However, pre
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50062
--- Comment #8 from Glenn Adams 2012-04-12 13:47:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> If that is true, then fop is misdesigned, and that IS a bug. There's no
> reason
> that you should need to access a physical head in order to do anythi
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52114
--- Comment #12 from Shawn 2012-04-12 14:15:19 UTC ---
Created attachment 28595
--> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28595
Updated FO based based on recoomendations
My FO is using a fixed width font (Courier). I updat
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52114
--- Comment #13 from Shawn 2012-04-12 14:15:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 28596
--> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28596
Output based on updated FO - Event worse
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugz
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49893
Peter Hancock changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEEDINFO|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52114
--- Comment #14 from Glenn Adams 2012-04-12 16:27:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Created attachment 28596 [details]
> Output based on updated FO - Event worse
(In reply to comment #11)
> only fixed font usage is supported for the T
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52114
--- Comment #15 from Shawn 2012-04-12 17:31:56 UTC ---
That definitely seemed to work. Thanks!
I do need to know if this could potentially break existing text we might be
sending through this renderer that come out looking just fine. If we
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52114
Glenn Adams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|WONTFIX |FIXED
--- Comment #16 from Glenn Ada
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50062
Jeremy Huddleston changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|WO
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50062
--- Comment #10 from Glenn Adams 2012-04-12 18:04:51 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> I agree that any dependencies on being attached to a head should be removed,
> but the fact that fop works just fine with -Djava.awt.headless=true seems
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52114
--- Comment #17 from Shawn 2012-04-12 19:20:52 UTC ---
Hey Glenn, it looks like you found a way to fix it? I don't suppose you could
provide any more details about what you think was causing it could you?
Also, will there be any issues if
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52114
--- Comment #18 from Glenn Adams 2012-04-12 20:49:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Hey Glenn, it looks like you found a way to fix it? I don't suppose you could
> provide any more details about what you think was causing it could you?
On Apr 12, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Glenn Adams wrote:
> Agreed that removing forrest dependency is desirable. However, presumably the
> current xdocs would need to be converted to MD, in which case someone will
> need to construct an XSLT to do so. That begs the question of whether it
> would be nece
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50062
Glenn Adams changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
21 matches
Mail list logo
