You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org by Finn Bock <bc...@worldonline.dk> on 2003/12/24 15:29:27 UTC
Trying to use the NIST test suite.
Hi,
I was looking for xsl-fo test suites on the net and found
http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/TestSuite/
but for some reason all the test in the NIST zip file uses master-name
instead of master-reference on the fo:page-sequence's.
<fo:page-sequence master-name="test-page-master">
Is there some kind of background story of this? To me, it seems like the
tests are plain wrong here.
regards,
finn
RE: Trying to use the NIST test suite.
Posted by Peter Herweg <ph...@web.de>.
>> but for some reason all the test in the NIST zip file uses master-name
>> instead of master-reference on the fo:page-sequence's.
Some of the test documents, which are shipped with jfor, also contain a
master-name attribute instead of master-reference. XEP (IMHO a quite good
processor) throws an error while processing them.
Kind regards
Peter Herweg
Re: Trying to use the NIST test suite.
Posted by Carmelo Montanez <ca...@nist.gov>.
HI all:
I developed the NIST test suite. I will look into this issue Friday
morning. Regrettably I can't dot this minute. I was under the
impression that the stated problem was solved years ago.
I will post something soon after Christmas.
Carmelo
At 03:29 PM 12/24/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I was looking for xsl-fo test suites on the net and found
> http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/TestSuite/
>
>but for some reason all the test in the NIST zip file uses master-name
>instead of master-reference on the fo:page-sequence's.
>
> <fo:page-sequence master-name="test-page-master">
>
>Is there some kind of background story of this? To me, it seems like the
>tests are plain wrong here.
>
>regards,
>finn
>
>
Re: Trying to use the NIST test suite.
Posted by Finn Bock <bc...@worldonline.dk>.
>>I was looking for xsl-fo test suites on the net and found
>> http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/TestSuite/
>>
>>but for some reason all the test in the NIST zip file uses master-name
>>instead of master-reference on the fo:page-sequence's.
>>
>> <fo:page-sequence master-name="test-page-master">
[Andreas L. Delmelle]
> Apparently this was admitted by earlier versions of the spec. Older versions
> of FOP still supported this, but the latest version throws an error...
>
> See also : http://xml.apache.org/fop/faq.html#no-page-master
Thank you for the link, that was exactly what I was looking for.
regards,
finn
Re: Trying to use the NIST test suite.
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@greenmail.ch>.
(comments inline)
On 24.12.2003 19:02:41 Clay Leeds wrote:
> On Dec 24, 2003, at 8:55 AM, Bernd Brandstetter wrote:
> > On Wednesday 24 December 2003 15:39, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
> >> Apparently this was admitted by earlier versions of the spec. Older
> >> versions of FOP still supported this, but the latest version throws an
> >> error...
> >
> > wouldn't it be reasonable to also accept the obsolete 'master-name'
> > and to
> > just print out a corresponding warning message instead of throwing an
> > error? AFAIK, the attribute has only been renamed to
> > 'master-reference',
> > but its meaning and usage remained identically the same.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bernd
>
> +1 (if non-votes count! ;-) )
Votes by committers only, but opinions from developers always count.
> In fact, I would love to see this considered a "bugfix" for the 0.20.5
> maintenance release, as I believe it would help people upgrade from
> 0.20.4 (or lower) to 0.20.5 and higher. Backward-compatibility is
> always a nice thing--especially if it's as "easy" as this appears to
> be.
Why? Just because the NIST test suite has never been updated to the
final spec? Carmelo Montanez recently promised to fix that. The XSL-FO
spec is now over two years old. I think everone can be expected to
upgrade their stylesheets to XSL-FO 1.0. It simply makes no sense to
keep pre-recommendation syntax around and I think we have more pressing
issues in the project right now.
Jeremias Maerki
Re: Trying to use the NIST test suite.
Posted by Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com>.
On Dec 24, 2003, at 4:03 PM, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
>>> wouldn't it be reasonable to also accept the obsolete 'master-name'
>>> and to
>>> just print out a corresponding warning message instead of throwing an
>>> error? AFAIK, the attribute has only been renamed to
>>> 'master-reference',
>>> but its meaning and usage remained identically the same.
>
> The latter seems preferrable as it discourages the use of properties
> that
> are undefined by the spec, while the first allows people to ignore it.
> If at
> some time they decide (for some mysterious reason) to use XEP instead
> of
> FOP, they'll receive an error anyway.
>
> Just a thought.
I would think that by providing a WARNING message RE: 'master-name
deprecated in favor of master-reference' or some such, that would
alleviate any concerns. It would also make old files work without
change (and look to the FAQ, which has much improved since Victor
started looking into things... ;-p).. If however, there is some
technical/challenging reason which this flies against (aghast?) then,
"never mind..."
Web Maestro Clay
RE: Trying to use the NIST test suite.
Posted by "Andreas L. Delmelle" <a_...@pandora.be>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clay Leeds [mailto:cleeds@medata.com]
> On Dec 24, 2003, at 8:55 AM, Bernd Brandstetter wrote:
> >
> > wouldn't it be reasonable to also accept the obsolete 'master-name'
> > and to
> > just print out a corresponding warning message instead of throwing an
> > error? AFAIK, the attribute has only been renamed to
> > 'master-reference',
> > but its meaning and usage remained identically the same.
> >
>
> +1 (if non-votes count! ;-) )
>
> In fact, I would love to see this considered a "bugfix" for the 0.20.5
> maintenance release, as I believe it would help people upgrade from
> 0.20.4 (or lower) to 0.20.5 and higher. Backward-compatibility is
> always a nice thing--especially if it's as "easy" as this appears to
> be.
>
Yes, perhaps some solution comparable to deprecation in Java. As ( and if )
the spec evolves further, this would become a necessity anyway. ( Problem
would appear if, in the future 'master-name' would be defined in a whole
different way... XSL-FO doesn't provide a 'version' attribute yet, like XSLT
does )
Then again, it seems hard to believe this topic has not presented itself
before, and maybe it wasn't so easy after all.
Since one of the primary goals of FOP is compliance with the spec, and if
the spec no longer considers this property name to be valid --what's more
important? Backward compatibility or compliance with (the most current
version of) the spec?
The latter seems preferrable as it discourages the use of properties that
are undefined by the spec, while the first allows people to ignore it. If at
some time they decide (for some mysterious reason) to use XEP instead of
FOP, they'll receive an error anyway.
Just a thought.
Cheers,
Andreas
Re: Trying to use the NIST test suite.
Posted by Clay Leeds <cl...@medata.com>.
On Dec 24, 2003, at 8:55 AM, Bernd Brandstetter wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 December 2003 15:39, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
>> Apparently this was admitted by earlier versions of the spec. Older
>> versions of FOP still supported this, but the latest version throws an
>> error...
>
> wouldn't it be reasonable to also accept the obsolete 'master-name'
> and to
> just print out a corresponding warning message instead of throwing an
> error? AFAIK, the attribute has only been renamed to
> 'master-reference',
> but its meaning and usage remained identically the same.
>
> Regards,
> Bernd
+1 (if non-votes count! ;-) )
In fact, I would love to see this considered a "bugfix" for the 0.20.5
maintenance release, as I believe it would help people upgrade from
0.20.4 (or lower) to 0.20.5 and higher. Backward-compatibility is
always a nice thing--especially if it's as "easy" as this appears to
be.
Re: Trying to use the NIST test suite.
Posted by Bernd Brandstetter <bb...@freenet.de>.
On Wednesday 24 December 2003 15:39, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Finn Bock [mailto:bckfnn@worldonline.dk]
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was looking for xsl-fo test suites on the net and found
> > http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/TestSuite/
> >
> > but for some reason all the test in the NIST zip file uses master-name
> > instead of master-reference on the fo:page-sequence's.
> >
> > <fo:page-sequence master-name="test-page-master">
>
> Hi,
>
> Apparently this was admitted by earlier versions of the spec. Older
> versions of FOP still supported this, but the latest version throws an
> error...
Hi,
wouldn't it be reasonable to also accept the obsolete 'master-name' and to
just print out a corresponding warning message instead of throwing an
error? AFAIK, the attribute has only been renamed to 'master-reference',
but its meaning and usage remained identically the same.
Regards,
Bernd
RE: Trying to use the NIST test suite.
Posted by "Andreas L. Delmelle" <a_...@pandora.be>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Finn Bock [mailto:bckfnn@worldonline.dk]
>
> Hi,
>
> I was looking for xsl-fo test suites on the net and found
> http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/TestSuite/
>
> but for some reason all the test in the NIST zip file uses master-name
> instead of master-reference on the fo:page-sequence's.
>
> <fo:page-sequence master-name="test-page-master">
>
Hi,
Apparently this was admitted by earlier versions of the spec. Older versions
of FOP still supported this, but the latest version throws an error...
See also : http://xml.apache.org/fop/faq.html#no-page-master
> Is there some kind of background story of this? To me, it seems like the
> tests are plain wrong here.
>
So they are indeed dead-wrong.
Cheers,
Andreas