[Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

Hi, Luis Benardo and Myself have just done some clean up to the branch Temp_RoundedCorners. This branch implements support for 'fox' extension properties for specifying borders with rounded corners. Please refer to [1] and [2] for details. There is an example fo [3] that demonstrates the featur

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

+1 On 12 October 2012 10:40, Peter Hancock wrote: > Hi, > > Luis Benardo and Myself have just done some clean up to the branch > Temp_RoundedCorners. This branch implements support for 'fox' > extension properties for specifying borders with rounded corners. > Please refer to [1] and [2] for d

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

Hi, Very good job! +1 2012/10/12 Peter Hancock : > Hi, > > Luis Benardo and Myself have just done some clean up to the branch > Temp_RoundedCorners. This branch implements support for 'fox' > extension properties for specifying borders with rounded corners. > Please refer to [1] and [2] for deta

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

Sounds good! +1 from me! Kind regards, Web Maestro Clay -- - My religion is simple. My religion is kindness. - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Peter Hancock wrote: > Hi, > > Luis Benardo and Myself have just done some clean up to the bran

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

I haven't had a chance to look at the details, but does this extension follow the (property name and value) definitions found in CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders [4]? If it doesn't, then my vote is -1; otherwise, I would vote +1. However, I also notice that the fox property name proposed in [1] contai

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

Thanks for taking the time to review this! On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: >... > However, I also notice that the fox property name proposed in [1] contains > uppercase (fox:border-BLOCK-radius-INLINE). That is a definite no-no, and > thus warrants a -1 vote until changed to L

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

I would prefer CSS3 naming conventions as well. Clay "My religion is simple. My religion is kindness." - HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet On Oct 12, 2012, at 6:48 AM, Peter Hancock wrote: > Thanks for taking the time to review this! > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Glenn Adams wrote: >> ...

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

Yes, CSS3 naming is easier to understand. And like other border-* properties, top, right, bottom, left should be mapped to equivalent FO directions in lr-tb mode (respectively before, end, after, start). 2012/10/12 Clay Leeds : > I would prefer CSS3 naming conventions as well. > > Clay > > "My rel

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Pascal Sancho wrote: > Yes, CSS3 naming is easier to understand. > And like other border-* properties, top, right, bottom, left should be > mapped to equivalent FO directions in lr-tb mode (respectively before, > end, after, start). Yes... We've got two 'standards

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/12/2012 10:34 AM, The Web Maestro wrote: > Yes... We've got two 'standards' to follow here: XSL-FO and CSS3. > Where possible, I'd like to err on the side of CSS3, since that is > so much more widely used. In fact, where (if?) there are > disc

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

My preference would be to provide both the CSS3 named properties and also writing system relative properties, giving the user the preference of which to use. But I would suggest using the same pattern as CSS3 for property names for these latter: border-top-left-radius border-top-right-radius borde

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

I took a peek since I helped with the branch in the beginning. Nice job over all!!! Good looking borders! I agree with Glenn that the extension should be aligned with CSS3 as closely as possible. In the usual XSL manner there should ideally be both relative (start, end...) and absolute (top, left.

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

Great feedback everyone. I will address property naming and document the table limitation spotted by Jeremias. On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > While there seem to be unit tests for the generation of painting > operators there are no layout engine tests that verify area

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

+1 Having the ‘absolute’ versions of the properties would be nice but this is not IMO a blocker requirement for the merge of this work. Here are a few comments based on a quick look at the branch: • o.a.f.fo.Constants PR_X_BORDER_START_RADIUS_START PR_X_BORDER_START_RADIUS_END PR_X_BORDER_E

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

Hi Glenn, I have just committed to Temp_RoundedCorners to address some of the concerns raised. > My preference would be to provide both the CSS3 named properties and also > writing system relative properties, giving the user the preference of which > to use. But I would suggest using the same pat

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

Hi Jeremias, I have updated the CMS to document that there are limitations with tables. I have suggested that setting the 'border-collapse' property on tables to 'separate' will allow the support of rounded corners on tables. I am currently fighting with FOPropertyMapping to support the absolu

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

Hi Vincent, In the last commit to Temp_RoundedCorners I have addressed all your points, except: > • o.a.f.render.intermediate.BorderPainterTestCase > the generics don’t seem necessary and could be removed altogether I would like to improve that little micro-framework to eliminate the need for ge

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

thanks, i'm good to go then, so you have my +1 On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Peter Hancock wrote: > Hi Glenn, > > I have just committed to Temp_RoundedCorners to address some of the > concerns raised. > > > My preference would be to provide both the CSS3 named properties and also > > writing

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

Hi, great job, Peter. I have just a comment: when using invalid *-radius property (IE fox:border-end-after-radius, inverting b-p-d and i-p-d radices), FOP should warn or throw an exception, but I guess this is a more general fox behaviour. still +1 for me. 2012/10/22 Peter Hancock : > Hi Jeremia

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

+1 from me... "My religion is simple. My religion is kindness." - HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet On Oct 22, 2012, at 8:04 AM, Peter Hancock wrote: > Hi Glenn, > > I have just committed to Temp_RoundedCorners to address some of the > concerns raised. > >> My preference would be to provide both the

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

+1 from me On 23 October 2012 13:25, Clay Leeds wrote: > +1 from me... > > "My religion is simple. My religion is kindness." > - HH The Dalai Lama of Tibet > > On Oct 22, 2012, at 8:04 AM, Peter Hancock > wrote: > > > Hi Glenn, > > > > I have just committed to Temp_RoundedCorners to address som

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

my vote: +1 On 10/12/12 10:40 AM, Peter Hancock wrote: Hi, Luis Benardo and Myself have just done some clean up to the branch Temp_RoundedCorners. This branch implements support for 'fox' extension properties for specifying borders with rounded corners. Please refer to [1] and [2] for detail

Re: [Vote] for the merge of Temp_RoundedCorners

With 7 +1 votes and a 0.5 for limited CSS3 support I am able to close the vote and perform the merge. Thank you to all those who explored the feature and provide feedback! Peter On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Luis Bernardo wrote: > > my vote: +1 > > > On 10/12/12 10:40 AM, Peter Hancock wrot