xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremias Maerki <dev.jerem...@greenmail.ch>
Subject Re: FOP Compliance Page was: getPageCount and FOP 1.0dev
Date Wed, 03 Aug 2005 07:03:43 GMT

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
> > > FO object or property "lives" (For a sample see the XSL-FO Object
> > > Support Table at http://www.arcus.com.au/fop/compliance.html). This
> > > solution scales better as it is more compact but it is harder to
> > > see if a particular version is conformant at a particular level.
> >
> > ii) should be good enough for now.
> Done the layout changes, added the 1.0dev column (actually I called it 
> WIP until we have an agreed name for it), reinstated the colour coding 
> (was a CSS problem), fixed the site overall to be HTML 4.01 compliant 
> (Forrest skin problem).

Sounds good. Thanks a lot! "WIP" could be replaced by "Trunk" for now.

> Now the next step is to actually update the compliance page with data 
> matching the progress in the trunk code. For the time being the 0.20.5 
> and WIP compliance columns are identical. Obviously that is incorrect, 
> but I don't know what the compliance status of the trunk code is. 
> Especially active committers please advise which compliance table 
> entries need change and to what.

If you want to start fill in stuff yourself, you could go through all
the testcases in:


If you want to run these testcases from the command-line, you can use
the testcase2fo.xsl stylesheet in the parent directory of the above. But
it's no problem if you send in your changes now. I guess it will only
take me about an hour to fill in the second column. I've got a pretty
good overview what works and what not.

> Here is the URL again: http://www.arcus.com.au/fop/compliance.html
> I also noticed that a number of objects and properties are marked as 
> compliant but in the comment column is a remark indicating there is a 
> problem with the compliance. For example: Property 
> "border-before-style" is marked as compliant but in the comment it says 
> "only "solid" works". Isn't that a partial compliance only? Shall I 
> update all those type of entries to "partial"?

Yes, please, that sounds more reasonable.

Jeremias Maerki

View raw message