On 03.08.2005 08:32:07 Manuel Mall wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 04:52 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > On 02.08.2005 03:18:44 Manuel Mall wrote:
> ...
> > > ii) Change the layout to a single column per version and indicate
> > > in a single separate column at which conformance level a particular
>
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 04:52 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> On 02.08.2005 03:18:44 Manuel Mall wrote:
...
> > ii) Change the layout to a single column per version and indicate
> > in a single separate column at which conformance level a particular
> > FO object or property "lives" (For a sample see the
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 basi
I agree with Victor. The conformance level is uninteresting for most
people anyway, and we can't currently claim full support for any
particular conformance level. It's all a big mix.
Keep it as simple as possible to get fast results. If we want something
more sophisticated we can do that later. A
Manuel Mall wrote:
Gentlemen,
can we agree on the following?
1. The compliance page must be able to handle multiple FOP versions.
What I was saying was this is true for the special case of having two
very different FOP versions, but once 0.20.5 is gone, this will no
longer be true. So ple
Manuel Mall wrote:
> I managed to revive the color coding (see
> http://www.arcus.com.au/fop/compliance.html). It was a CSS
> issue in that the FOP custom stylesheet rules were less
> specific than the Forrest default CSS rules and therefore not
> applied on the table elements.
The original i
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
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 (0.20.
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 valua
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 co
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 code has stablized and its b
Manuel Mall wrote:
Back to the compliance page. I assume what is required is some indication of
1.0dev compliance vs 0.20.5 compliance. To achieve that we could:
a) Add extra columns, eg.
Support (0.20.5)|Support (1.0dev)
Basic | Extended | Complete | Basic | Extended | C
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:09 am, The Web Maestro wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2005, at 4:28 PM, 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 colu
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
On Jul 31, 2005, at 4:28 PM, Manuel Mall wrote:
I am using 0.7 and there was no conversion required. I could try to
take the
pelt skin and to modify it to address the HTML 4.01 compatibility
issues.
However, I am not sure if that would be time well spent.
Likely all that is needed to 'convert
Clay,
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 02:39 am, The Web Maestro wrote:
> Manuel,
>
> First of all, thanks loads for helping out with this!
>
> On Jul 30, 2005, at 11:32 PM, Manuel Mall wrote:
...
>
> We currently use Forrest 0.6. Forrest 0.7 was recently released, and it
> was on my personal ToDo list to conve
Manuel,
First of all, thanks loads for helping out with this!
On Jul 30, 2005, at 11:32 PM, Manuel Mall wrote:
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 val
17 matches
Mail list logo
