Re: [xmlroff] First xmroff php extension test

[Tony G. <Ton...@Su...>]

"Mauro C." <inc...@ya...> writes:
> I've just finish the first test on a xmlroff php
> extension.

I'm impressed.

> I use the xmlroff-libfo sample.

I had always considered that xmlroff-basic.c would be easiest to use when
interfacing libfo to something else.  Are you able to say why you chose
the example of xmlroff-libfo.c over xmlroff-basic.c?

> just experimental, not all testsuite-0.3.8 passed.

The xmlroff executable doesn't pass all of the testsuite.

The latest publicly available test results at
http://xmlroff.org/release/latest/testresults/index.html show 84%.  (And since
they're over a year old, it's about time they were updated.)  The current
testsuite is nearly twice as large as that, and xmlroff passes more tests but
a lower percentage of the current total.

> it depends maybe on my xmlroff installation:
>
> some package installed from deb other from source, not
> compiled with image support (fo:external-graphic
> !?!?).

What version of xmlroff did you use?

> The extension is compiled for apache 1.3.34/php4.2.2.
>
> Some extra work for resolve include dependance.
>
> improvements:
>
> OO interface.
> error handling.
> interface with DOMXML extension (xmlDocPtr).
>
> can test:
>
> http://www.netools.it/test_php_xmlroff.php

It worked well when I tried 'xmlroff.fo' with it.

Regards,


Tony.