xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com>
Subject Re: The base of relative URIs in fop.xconf
Date Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:50:09 GMT
note that the "file:" URL scheme does not technically support relative URLs;
however, that hasn't prevented some implementations from making non-standard
extensions to provide such support

On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:08 AM, Jeremias Maerki <dev@jeremias-maerki.ch>wrote:

> I found a potential problem: The <directory> Tag in the configuration
> takes file paths (not URIs, since we can't detect files on arbitrary
> URIs). FontInfoConfigurator doesn't try to resolve relative directories
> against the base or font base URI (see #addDirectories() and
> FontFileFinder.find(String)). So people using relative paths could run
> into a small problem here. Maybe we need to resolve against the base URI
> if the base URI is a file-based URI.
>
> On 14.01.2011 14:04:03 Simon Pepping wrote:
> > Done. Simon
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 07:40:59PM +0100, Simon Pepping wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:55:25AM +0000, Peter Hancock wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > When configuring the base directory using the fop.xconf relative urls
> > > > are based on the working directory, and not the fop.xconf.
> > > > This contradicts the URI specification as pointed out in
> > > > http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Problem-with-custom-fonts-p10013042.html
> > >
> > > I hate it when applications show this bug. I was not aware that FOP
> > > suffers from it. The problem must be solved as soon as possible.
> > >
> > > > Can anyone suggest a robust way of achieving this scenario, given the
> > > > current limitations of FOP, or should I fix this bug?
> > >
> > > It would be wonderful if you can provide a fix.
> > >
> > > Simon
>
>
>
>
> Jeremias Maerki
>
>

Mime
View raw message