Re: Handling foreign content

[Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>]

Jeremias Maerki wrote:

> FOP should also stop to complain about certain foreign elements. The
> complaints are fine as a debugging aid, for example if someone makes a
> mistake with the namespace URI or the name of an element in a particular
> namespace. Here's where I got the idea that we could provide for a list
> of namespace URIs which are simply silently ignored (instead of having
> to write a FOP extension for each namespace). If someone has a reference
> to a namespace URI in his documents that FOP doesn't know about he could
> add that namespace URI to that list and FOP will fall silent over it.
> The same list could be used for handling foreign attributes. This way
> you still get important feedback if you've done anything wrong, but can
> tell FOP to shut up where necessary.
> 
> WDYT?

Good idea, I like the idea of the ignore-namespace list.

Chris

Re: Handling foreign content

[Andreas L Delmelle <a_...@pandora.be>]

On Feb 20, 2006, at 12:19, Chris Bowditch wrote:

> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
>
>> FOP should also stop to complain about certain foreign elements. The
>> complaints are fine as a debugging aid, for example if someone  
>> makes a
>> mistake with the namespace URI or the name of an element in a  
>> particular
>> namespace. Here's where I got the idea that we could provide for a  
>> list
>> of namespace URIs which are simply silently ignored (instead of  
>> having
>> to write a FOP extension for each namespace). If someone has a  
>> reference
>> to a namespace URI in his documents that FOP doesn't know about he  
>> could
>> add that namespace URI to that list and FOP will fall silent over it.
>> The same list could be used for handling foreign attributes. This way
>> you still get important feedback if you've done anything wrong,  
>> but can
>> tell FOP to shut up where necessary.
>> WDYT?
>
> Good idea, I like the idea of the ignore-namespace list.

I second that.

Nils' initial patch still seems valid/worthwhile though (even if it  
looks more like a quick fix)
The whole property subsystem should in essence only be concerned  
about attributes in the FO namespace. The proposed location seems  
like the ideal spot to filter these out and, for the future, add any  
non-FO attributes to an 'extension property list' that could be  
passed entirely to somewhere else...

Cheers,

Andreas