On 02.08.2005 03:18:44 Manuel Mall wrote:
Gentlemen,
can we agree on the following?
1. The compliance page must be able to handle multiple FOP versions.
Two, at most.
2. Which versions are shown at any point in time and how they are called
will be decided on a case by case basis.
The Web Maestro wrote:
On Aug 1, 2005, at 2:58 AM, Chris Bowditch wrote:
I don't think adding/removing releases from the compliance page is
something we plan on doing frequently. A side by side comparsion is
only required now because the Trunk code is a complete re-write.
Once the trunk
Manuel Mall wrote:
BTW, why do we have the 3 columns Basic | Extended | Complete? Every
row will only have one cell out of those 3 filled out. Wouldn't it
make more sense to have a single column called Compliance or Core with
the values Basic, Extended or Complete? That would save valuable
Gentlemen,
can we agree on the following?
1. The compliance page must be able to handle multiple FOP versions.
2. Which versions are shown at any point in time and how they are called
will be decided on a case by case basis. Currently we are talking only
about the last official release
Victor,
thanks for the background information.
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 09:19 am, Victor Mote wrote:
Manuel Mall wrote:
BTW, why do we have the 3 columns Basic | Extended | Complete?
Every row will only have one cell out of those 3 filled out.
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a single column
Got the Forrest installation and site generation sorted out.
Just as an observation the site claims to be HTML 4.01 compliant but when you
submit it to the W3C validator it fails validation. Basically we are making
an unsubstantiated claim on compatibility here. The problems seems however to
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:09 am, The Web Maestro wrote:
On Jul 31, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Manuel Mall wrote:
...
I seems originally the compliance page was created using some XSLT
transformations (see src/documentation/resources/stylesheets). Has this
approach been abandoned? I can't find the input
