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 Carmelo Montanez <ca...@nist.gov> on 2001/11/29 21:14:03 UTC
FOP conformance
Hi all:
Anyone aware of how FOP 0.20.2 conforms to the latest XSL recommendations
of October of this year?, I am writing some conformance tests for the latest
specifications and FOP complains about
<fo:page-sequence master-reference = "some-master-reference">
....
</fo:page-sequence>
it complains about "master-reference", which used to be "master-name" on
the previous version.
Thanks,
Carmelo Montanez
Re: FOP conformance
Posted by Carmelo Montanez <ca...@nist.gov>.
Hi All:
Actually I was not implying or suggesting that you correct FOP and
make it work for just the "page-reference" property, that will be a minor
change on the great scheme of things, however if you have a number
of "minor" things, it eventually adds up to a lot of things.
On my particular case, I will be unable to take advantage of all the
wonderful things FOP has to offer. It will be nice to check the
tests (I think we will have thousands of tests) against various
implementations.
I guess my point is that even if FOP does not have those
"minor" things at this point, maybe it can have them
at some not too distant future.
Greetings
Carmelo Montanez
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Relative file URI's on Windows
Posted by Torkild Ulvøy Resheim <tr...@online.no>.
Is there any way to get relative file URI's to work on Windows? I think I've tried almost everything.
Torkild Ulvøy Resheim
Emma EDB AS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: FOP conformance
Posted by Karen Lease <kl...@club-internet.fr>.
I'm glad to see this will be getting done. I had thought of doing it,
but I'm trying not to get distracted and to devote what little time I
have (which is likely not to improve for the next two weeks
unfortunately) to the new FOP.
Since I'm going to be talking about XSL-FO at the XML 2001 conference in
10 days, I would have been a bit unhappy to admit that there is no
version of FOP which handles the final XSL recommendation syntax.
I think there are a few bug fixes and table improvements in the current
maintenance branch which I committed just after 0-20.2-RC was out, and
which may help some FOP users. I've also seen some recent complaints
about Fop's famous looping behavior when any object won't fit on the
page, including a set of spanned table rows. I think it would at least
be worthwhile trying to make a set of spanning rows breakable. If Arved,
Christian or someone else could look at this, I'd be happy to give a few
pointers.
Regards,
Karen
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>
> And between me and Christian I think we will see to it that this change, at
> least, gets done and is reflected in a maintenance release, which I suggest
> should appear NLT Dec 15.
>
> In other words, I accept your argument (that was never in question). It's a
> resource thing...Keiron and Karen (and some others, such as Peter West) are
> looking at the rewrite, so it's up to the rest of us to do stuff like this.
>
> AHS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
RE: FOP conformance
Posted by Scott Sanders <ss...@nextance.com>.
Tell me where to look, and I'll take a crack at it. I ran into this
while trying to use FOP, and switched to the simple-page-master to make
it work.
Thanks
Scott Sanders
-----Original Message-----
From: Arved Sandstrom [mailto:Arved_37@chebucto.ns.ca]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 10:03 AM
To: fop-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: FOP conformance
And between me and Christian I think we will see to it that this change,
at
least, gets done and is reflected in a maintenance release, which I
suggest
should appear NLT Dec 15.
In other words, I accept your argument (that was never in question).
It's a
resource thing...Keiron and Karen (and some others, such as Peter West)
are
looking at the rewrite, so it's up to the rest of us to do stuff like
this.
AHS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <el...@metalab.unc.edu>
To: <fo...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: FOP conformance
> At 1:19 PM -0400 11/30/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>
>
> >As regards the topic in general, I support Keiron 100%. The entire
point
of
> >the rewrite is that during the process things are in limbo...this was
well
> >understood before, or so I thought.
>
> It was understood. However, there was an implicit assumption that
> XSL-FO was stable enough that FOP 0.20-2 would continue to work as
> well as it ever had. When XSL 1.0 was released, that assumption
> proved to be false. That's not the fault of anybody here, just life
> on the bleeding edge. As other projects like DocBook start upgrading
> their stylesheets to support the final XSL 1.0 recommendation, then
> FOP stops working where it worked before. This means users need to
> make a decision between supporting the tools that work with XSL 1.0
> and FOP. Nobody here anticipated this.
>
> Note that I am specifically talking about the change from the
> master-name to master-reference attribute, not the various other
> patches that have been submitted to 0.20-2. While useful, those
> patches aren't as important. The master-name/master-reference affects
> all XSL-FO documents, and means that FOP is totally non-functional.
> This is not a case of not supporting this feature in these
> stylesheets or that feature in those stylesheets. FOP will not
> produce any output when presented with an XSL 1.0 stylesheet. It
> cannot be used.
> --
>
> +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
> | Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
> +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
> | The XML Bible, 2nd Edition (Hungry Minds, 2001) |
> | http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/ |
> | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/ |
> +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
> | Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ |
> | Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/ |
> +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: FOP conformance
Posted by Arved Sandstrom <Ar...@chebucto.ns.ca>.
And between me and Christian I think we will see to it that this change, at
least, gets done and is reflected in a maintenance release, which I suggest
should appear NLT Dec 15.
In other words, I accept your argument (that was never in question). It's a
resource thing...Keiron and Karen (and some others, such as Peter West) are
looking at the rewrite, so it's up to the rest of us to do stuff like this.
AHS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <el...@metalab.unc.edu>
To: <fo...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: FOP conformance
> At 1:19 PM -0400 11/30/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>
>
> >As regards the topic in general, I support Keiron 100%. The entire point
of
> >the rewrite is that during the process things are in limbo...this was
well
> >understood before, or so I thought.
>
> It was understood. However, there was an implicit assumption that
> XSL-FO was stable enough that FOP 0.20-2 would continue to work as
> well as it ever had. When XSL 1.0 was released, that assumption
> proved to be false. That's not the fault of anybody here, just life
> on the bleeding edge. As other projects like DocBook start upgrading
> their stylesheets to support the final XSL 1.0 recommendation, then
> FOP stops working where it worked before. This means users need to
> make a decision between supporting the tools that work with XSL 1.0
> and FOP. Nobody here anticipated this.
>
> Note that I am specifically talking about the change from the
> master-name to master-reference attribute, not the various other
> patches that have been submitted to 0.20-2. While useful, those
> patches aren't as important. The master-name/master-reference affects
> all XSL-FO documents, and means that FOP is totally non-functional.
> This is not a case of not supporting this feature in these
> stylesheets or that feature in those stylesheets. FOP will not
> produce any output when presented with an XSL 1.0 stylesheet. It
> cannot be used.
> --
>
> +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
> | Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
> +-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
> | The XML Bible, 2nd Edition (Hungry Minds, 2001) |
> | http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/ |
> | http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/ |
> +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
> | Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ |
> | Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/ |
> +----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: FOP conformance
Posted by Elliotte Rusty Harold <el...@metalab.unc.edu>.
At 1:19 PM -0400 11/30/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>As regards the topic in general, I support Keiron 100%. The entire point of
>the rewrite is that during the process things are in limbo...this was well
>understood before, or so I thought.
It was understood. However, there was an implicit assumption that
XSL-FO was stable enough that FOP 0.20-2 would continue to work as
well as it ever had. When XSL 1.0 was released, that assumption
proved to be false. That's not the fault of anybody here, just life
on the bleeding edge. As other projects like DocBook start upgrading
their stylesheets to support the final XSL 1.0 recommendation, then
FOP stops working where it worked before. This means users need to
make a decision between supporting the tools that work with XSL 1.0
and FOP. Nobody here anticipated this.
Note that I am specifically talking about the change from the
master-name to master-reference attribute, not the various other
patches that have been submitted to 0.20-2. While useful, those
patches aren't as important. The master-name/master-reference affects
all XSL-FO documents, and means that FOP is totally non-functional.
This is not a case of not supporting this feature in these
stylesheets or that feature in those stylesheets. FOP will not
produce any output when presented with an XSL 1.0 stylesheet. It
cannot be used.
--
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| The XML Bible, 2nd Edition (Hungry Minds, 2001) |
| http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/ |
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ |
| Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: FOP conformance
Posted by Arved Sandstrom <Ar...@chebucto.ns.ca>.
Hi, Christian
That would be much appreciated. As before, I can do the actual release
itself once someone has notified me (read "the list") that they think the
time is right.
As regards the topic in general, I support Keiron 100%. The entire point of
the rewrite is that during the process things are in limbo...this was well
understood before, or so I thought. Making improvements to a pre-rewrite
release such as FOP-0.20.2 should not use any cycles from the most
productive coders we currently have on this project. IMHO. Which is why
having others chip in is much appreciated.
I can spare enough time to support commits to FOP-0.20.2, and minor work,
since I am currently most definitely _not_ a productive coder. :-) I'd plead
time pressure, which has been a major factor, but to be honest what I have
really been much of this year is simply burnt out on Java. I am much less
enthused about it than I was before, and for the past 2 years, after using
it at work every single day (J2EE, J2ME) I hardly wanted to use it again in
my own time.
I say that simply so the other committers become aware of what the situation
is. I have most definitely not lost interest in FOP or XSL-FO - I just need
a rest from Java, rather badly. But in any case I can support minor work
such as this maintenance release. I am currently working on a contract which
has absolutely zero to do with Java and XML (it's SQL, C++, ASP), which is
so refreshing that I cannot even begin to describe it. :-) Hopefully that'll
clear my head and allow me to get back into Java coding again.
Regards,
Arved Sandstrom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Geisert" <Ch...@isu-gmbh.de>
To: <fo...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: FOP conformance
> Keiron Liddle wrote:
> >
> > On 2001.11.30 15:39 Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> > > At 4:48 PM -0400 11/29/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> > > This was already a known thing, and Norman Walsh pointed it out also.
> > >
> > > There is simply no point in fixing this until the FOP rewrite emerges.
> > >
> > >
> > > That's your choice. However, you should realize that this is going to
> > > cause a lot of confusion for many users. It basically condemns FOP to
> > > irrelevance until the rewrite is finished. I'm personally going to
have
> > > pull references to FOP out of the online XML Bible chapters and the
next
> > > edition of XML in a Nutshell, and switch my own toolchains over to
> > > PassiveTeX. Although this is a small change conceptually, it is one
that
> > > affects pretty much *every* XSL-FO document anyone is ever going to
> > > write.
>
> [..]
>
> > If someone else really thinks there are things that need doing then I
> > strongly suggest that you get busy and do them.
> >
> > Does anyone else have any better suggestions? I would be glad to hear
them.
>
> I think too we should do a maintenance release (from 'fop-0_20_2-maintain'
> branch).
>
> I volunteer to do the necessary patches, do some testing etc.
>
>
> > Regards,
> > Keiron.
>
> Christian
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Maintanance release (was: FOP conformance)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@codeconsult.ch>.
On Monday 03 December 2001 12:19, Christian Geisert wrote:
> What about jfor ?
> I think it would be a good idea to add it with "user-level" integration as
> proposed by Betrand.
Depends on schedule - I'm very busy for the next two weeks, it would be hard
for me to find time to do the code moving and integration,
- Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Maintanance release (was: FOP conformance)
Posted by Christian Geisert <Ch...@isu-gmbh.de>.
Keiron Liddle wrote:
>
[..]
> The things that I can think of that need doing are:
> - change appropriate "master-name" to "master-reference" in code and
> example documents
> - update version number and such info
>
> Then do some testing and check that everything is in order.
What about jfor ?
I think it would be a good idea to add it with "user-level" integration as
proposed by Betrand.
Christian Geisert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: FOP conformance
Posted by Keiron Liddle <ke...@aftexsw.com>.
> I think too we should do a maintenance release (from
> 'fop-0_20_2-maintain'
> branch).
>
> I volunteer to do the necessary patches, do some testing etc.
Very Good!!
Then I suggest you set a timetable to do the release.
Tore has already committed a bunch of things. Batik has been updated to
the latest cvs, this should be api compatible with the upcoming 1.1
release. Another fix is that it won't keep opening a stream for images if
the image is found.
The things that I can think of that need doing are:
- change appropriate "master-name" to "master-reference" in code and
example documents
- update version number and such info
Then do some testing and check that everything is in order.
Big Thanks to those people for doing this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: FOP conformance
Posted by Arved Sandstrom <Ar...@chebucto.ns.ca>.
Cool. If there is nothing else code-wise, I'll stand by waiting to build the
release itself.
Arved
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Geisert" <Ch...@isu-gmbh.de>
To: <fo...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: FOP conformance
> Tore Engvig wrote:
> >
>
> [..]
>
> > The simple-page-master stuff that originated the whole maintenance
release
> > and Karen's table suggestions are still left to be done (Christian?)
>
> Yes, I hope to send the patches tomorrow (tuesday)
>
> > Tore
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: FOP conformance
Posted by Christian Geisert <Ch...@isu-gmbh.de>.
Tore Engvig wrote:
>
[..]
> The simple-page-master stuff that originated the whole maintenance release
> and Karen's table suggestions are still left to be done (Christian?)
Yes, I hope to send the patches tomorrow (tuesday)
> Tore
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
RE: FOP conformance
Posted by Tore Engvig <te...@manamind.com>.
Christian Geisert wrote:
[SNIP]
> I think too we should do a maintenance release (from 'fop-0_20_2-maintain'
> branch).
>
> I volunteer to do the necessary patches, do some testing etc.
I just checked in some patches that's been floating around into the
fop-0_20_2-maintain branch:
* Raymond Penners' letter-spacing patch (with some changes to use the Tc
operator in the PDF
Renderer and ashow in the PSRenderer)
* Marcin Kuthan's Polish Hyphenation patterns
* Cristi Ruja sent a patch late august about a bug in TTFReader
* My own jpeg and eps patches
The simple-page-master stuff that originated the whole maintenance release
and Karen's table suggestions are still left to be done (Christian?)
Tore
>
>
> > Regards,
> > Keiron.
>
> Christian
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: FOP conformance
Posted by Christian Geisert <Ch...@isu-gmbh.de>.
Keiron Liddle wrote:
>
> On 2001.11.30 15:39 Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> > At 4:48 PM -0400 11/29/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> > This was already a known thing, and Norman Walsh pointed it out also.
> >
> > There is simply no point in fixing this until the FOP rewrite emerges.
> >
> >
> > That's your choice. However, you should realize that this is going to
> > cause a lot of confusion for many users. It basically condemns FOP to
> > irrelevance until the rewrite is finished. I'm personally going to have
> > pull references to FOP out of the online XML Bible chapters and the next
> > edition of XML in a Nutshell, and switch my own toolchains over to
> > PassiveTeX. Although this is a small change conceptually, it is one that
> > affects pretty much *every* XSL-FO document anyone is ever going to
> > write.
[..]
> If someone else really thinks there are things that need doing then I
> strongly suggest that you get busy and do them.
>
> Does anyone else have any better suggestions? I would be glad to hear them.
I think too we should do a maintenance release (from 'fop-0_20_2-maintain'
branch).
I volunteer to do the necessary patches, do some testing etc.
> Regards,
> Keiron.
Christian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: FOP conformance
Posted by Keiron Liddle <ke...@aftexsw.com>.
On 2001.11.30 15:39 Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> At 4:48 PM -0400 11/29/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> This was already a known thing, and Norman Walsh pointed it out also.
>
> There is simply no point in fixing this until the FOP rewrite emerges.
>
>
> That's your choice. However, you should realize that this is going to
> cause a lot of confusion for many users. It basically condemns FOP to
> irrelevance until the rewrite is finished. I'm personally going to have
> pull references to FOP out of the online XML Bible chapters and the next
> edition of XML in a Nutshell, and switch my own toolchains over to
> PassiveTeX. Although this is a small change conceptually, it is one that
> affects pretty much *every* XSL-FO document anyone is ever going to
> write.
>
> FOP has a large mindshare because it was first and because it is open
> source. Leaving this minor change until the rewrite is done is pretty
> much going to abandon the competitive advantages FOP has gained by being
> first. People will move to PassiveTeX, XEP, Antenna House, and other
> products instead. If that's OK with you, then that's your choice. Just
> make sure this is in fact what you want to happen.
To put it another way.
I could keep doing all the small things for everyone while telling them
that a whole set of problems will be solved at some indefinite time in the
future which keeps getting further away. This will also eventually condemn
FOP to irrelevance.
Doing that will also mean that other people are not able to get involved
with FOP as there is a major change that needs to happen to get many
things working properly.
If people really insist then I can make a release soon. This will delay
any other important improvements.
If someone else really thinks there are things that need doing then I
strongly suggest that you get busy and do them.
Does anyone else have any better suggestions? I would be glad to hear them.
Regards,
Keiron.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: FOP conformance
Posted by Elliotte Rusty Harold <el...@metalab.unc.edu>.
At 4:48 PM -0400 11/29/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
This was already a known thing, and Norman Walsh pointed it out also.
There is simply no point in fixing this until the FOP rewrite emerges.
That's your choice. However, you should realize that this is going to
cause a lot of confusion for many users. It basically condemns FOP to
irrelevance until the rewrite is finished. I'm personally going to
have pull references to FOP out of the online XML Bible chapters and
the next edition of XML in a Nutshell, and switch my own toolchains
over to PassiveTeX. Although this is a small change conceptually, it
is one that affects pretty much *every* XSL-FO document anyone is
ever going to write.
FOP has a large mindshare because it was first and because it is open
source. Leaving this minor change until the rewrite is done is pretty
much going to abandon the competitive advantages FOP has gained by
being first. People will move to PassiveTeX, XEP, Antenna House, and
other products instead. If that's OK with you, then that's your
choice. Just make sure this is in fact what you want to happen.
--
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| Elliotte Rusty Harold | elharo@metalab.unc.edu | Writer/Programmer |
+-----------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
| The XML Bible, 2nd Edition (Hungry Minds, 2001) |
| http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/bible2/ |
| http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0764547607/cafeaulaitA/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Read Cafe au Lait for Java News: http://www.cafeaulait.org/ |
| Read Cafe con Leche for XML News: http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/ |
+----------------------------------+---------------------------------+
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: FOP conformance
Posted by Arved Sandstrom <Ar...@chebucto.ns.ca>.
This was already a known thing, and Norman Walsh pointed it out also.
There is simply no point in fixing this until the FOP rewrite emerges.
Arved Sandstrom
----- Original Message -----
From: Carmelo Montanez
To: fop-dev@xml.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 4:14 PM
Subject: FOP conformance
Hi all:
Anyone aware of how FOP 0.20.2 conforms to the latest XSL recommendations
of October of this year?, I am writing some conformance tests for the latest
specifications and FOP complains about
<fo:page-sequence master-reference = "some-master-reference">
....
</fo:page-sequence>
it complains about "master-reference", which used to be "master-name" on
the previous version.
Thanks,
Carmelo Montanez