xmlroff-list — xmlroff XSL formatter discussion list

[xmlroff] A few questions

[HILT G. <gui...@wa...>]

Hi everybody,

I've just discovered xmlroff and try to use my xsl-fo from fop to it.

Is there a way with xmlroff to show page number and the number of pages in
the document ?

region-before and region;after extent aren't allowed so my header and footer
aren't printed :x

How can I define a zone for my header and footer ?

If someone could give me some part of code, I'll appreciate :)

Thanks,

--
HILT Guillaume <Shadow AOK>
Webmaster
http://www.shadowprojects.org

________________________________________________
Message sent using UebiMiau 2.7.9

Re: [xmlroff] libfo interface and PHP ext

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

"Mauro C." <inc...@ya...> writes:
> --- Tony Graham <Ton...@Su...> ha scritto: 
>> "Mauro C." <inc...@ya...> writes:
...
>> I don't want to decide without further discussion. 
>> Does anyone else have any
>> input?
>> 
>> > I have the same problem with the output result:
>> > where can I get a pointer to result doc
>> > (FoDocGP->job)?
>> 
>> Yes, I guess so.

Actually, FoDocGP is capable of writing multiple output files if the page size
changes between page sequences.

>> > is the output file written when fo_doc_gp_finalize
>> is
>> > invoked?
>> 
>> Yes, which really happens when you run:
>> 
>>    'g_object_unref (fo_doc);'
>> 
>> I am open for suggestions on how to change that.
>
> my idea is to separate creation and file writing and
> have to call explicitly function to generate and other
>  one to get result or to write file.
>
> not see all the source of libgnomeprint, but ther is:
>
> GnomePrintJob->meta->buf
>
> guchar *buf;
>
> maybe the buffer used for the output result.
>
>> 
>> I don't want to expose the GnomePrintJob underneath
>> FoDoc any more than I
>> wanted to expose the xmlDocPtr under FoXmlDoc, but
>> it's obvious that the
>> current setup is not useful for your purposes.
>
> good strategy to not expose implementation expecially
> for libgnomeprint. so you can change print engine
> without force to recompile apllication that rely on
> libfo.

Against my better judgement, I'm currently working on a Cairo backend for
xmlroff.

A Cairo backend has long been talked about, but I figured that if we're going
to change the FoDoc interface, we might as well change it once so it works for
scripting languages and Cairo, instead of changing it once now and possibly
changing it again later for Cairo.

The Cairo backend looks fairly straightforward, though there's still the
possibility of surprises.  The hardest part looks to be... getting the output
result.

Regards,


Tony.

Re: [xmlroff] libfo interface and PHP ext

[Mauro C. <inc...@ya...>]

--- Tony Graham <Ton...@Su...> ha scritto: 

> "Mauro C." <inc...@ya...> writes:
> > I'm continuing dev xmlroff php extension and study
> > libfo.
> 
> Great.
> 
> > my problem is that actualy the only way to work
> with
> > libfo is to write tmp file.
> >
> > I'agree the libfo abstract from xml
> implementation.
> >
> > I've found two solution:
> >
> > 1) include libxml in xmlroff php ext and then set
> > FoXmlDoc->xml_doc directly.
> > (I've seen fo-xml-doc-private.h).
> >
> > 2) change libfo interface and allow for examples
> > fo_xml_doc_parse_file and fo_xml_doc_parse_memory,
> and
> > generally the possibility to work with mem and/or
> > file.
> 
> Isn't there a third solution:
> 
> 3) Write an adapter such as
> fo_xml_doc_new_from_DOMXML(DOMXML), since you said
>    last week that DOMXML was the PHP wrapper on
> xmlDocPtr.

yes, i've to link ext to libxml.

> 
>    I don't know what the function name would look
> like as an PHP function
>    name, but you probably get the idea.

namespace is not a problem, PHP have heterogenous API
namespace :(

It's important that libfo public interface will be
homogenous

> 
>    That way, you could do any amount of work in your
> PHP program to arrive at
>    an XSL document that you want to format, and then
> just pass it to xmlroff.

The reason because I started to dev PHP ext!

> 
>    The downside is that such a function would work
> for PHP, but not for any
>    other scripting language, since each host
> scripting language would require
>    its own unique adapter function.

Perl and Python have a wrapper to libxml/libxslt:

http://xmlsoft.org/contribs.html

> 
>    The idea of a unique adapter function is counter
> to the promise of a SWIG
>    interface where a bit of SWIG magic would allow
> multiple scripting
>    languages to instantly support xmlroff.
> 
> I don't want to decide without further discussion. 
> Does anyone else have any
> input?
> 
> > I have the same problem with the output result:
> > where can I get a pointer to result doc
> > (FoDocGP->job)?
> 
> Yes, I guess so.
> 
> > is the output file written when fo_doc_gp_finalize
> is
> > invoked?
> 
> Yes, which really happens when you run:
> 
>    'g_object_unref (fo_doc);'
> 
> I am open for suggestions on how to change that.

my idea is to separate creation and file writing and
have to call explicitly function to generate and other
 one to get result or to write file.

not see all the source of libgnomeprint, but ther is:

GnomePrintJob->meta->buf

guchar *buf;

maybe the buffer used for the output result.

> 
> I don't want to expose the GnomePrintJob underneath
> FoDoc any more than I
> wanted to expose the xmlDocPtr under FoXmlDoc, but
> it's obvious that the
> current setup is not useful for your purposes.

good strategy to not expose implementation expecially
for libgnomeprint. so you can change print engine
without force to recompile apllication that rely on
libfo.

> 
> > actually ext has OO interface, but no error
> bubbling.
> > tested only with PHP 4.4.2.
> > configuration file incomplete.
> >
> > where can I release it? not possible to release it
> at
> > pecl.php.net due to licence incompatibility.
> 
> You could contribute it to xmlroff.

yes :)

this weekend I've tried to make a deb package but i've
to rebuild xmlroff using debian source package and not
tar.gz to resolve dependance. also require to make a
deb package for pangoxsl if is not included in
xmlroff.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Tony.
> 

ciao

Mauro casciari


	

	
		
___________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB 
http://mail.yahoo.it

Re: [xmlroff] libfo interface and PHP ext

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

"Mauro C." <inc...@ya...> writes:
> I'm continuing dev xmlroff php extension and study
> libfo.

Great.

> my problem is that actualy the only way to work with
> libfo is to write tmp file.
>
> I'agree the libfo abstract from xml implementation.
>
> I've found two solution:
>
> 1) include libxml in xmlroff php ext and then set
> FoXmlDoc->xml_doc directly.
> (I've seen fo-xml-doc-private.h).
>
> 2) change libfo interface and allow for examples
> fo_xml_doc_parse_file and fo_xml_doc_parse_memory, and
> generally the possibility to work with mem and/or
> file.

Isn't there a third solution:

3) Write an adapter such as fo_xml_doc_new_from_DOMXML(DOMXML), since you said
   last week that DOMXML was the PHP wrapper on xmlDocPtr.

   I don't know what the function name would look like as an PHP function
   name, but you probably get the idea.

   That way, you could do any amount of work in your PHP program to arrive at
   an XSL document that you want to format, and then just pass it to xmlroff.

   The downside is that such a function would work for PHP, but not for any
   other scripting language, since each host scripting language would require
   its own unique adapter function.

   The idea of a unique adapter function is counter to the promise of a SWIG
   interface where a bit of SWIG magic would allow multiple scripting
   languages to instantly support xmlroff.

I don't want to decide without further discussion.  Does anyone else have any
input?

> I have the same problem with the output result:
> where can I get a pointer to result doc
> (FoDocGP->job)?

Yes, I guess so.

> is the output file written when fo_doc_gp_finalize is
> invoked?

Yes, which really happens when you run:

   'g_object_unref (fo_doc);'

I am open for suggestions on how to change that.

I don't want to expose the GnomePrintJob underneath FoDoc any more than I
wanted to expose the xmlDocPtr under FoXmlDoc, but it's obvious that the
current setup is not useful for your purposes.

> actually ext has OO interface, but no error bubbling.
> tested only with PHP 4.4.2.
> configuration file incomplete.
>
> where can I release it? not possible to release it at
> pecl.php.net due to licence incompatibility.

You could contribute it to xmlroff.

Regards,


Tony.

[xmlroff] libfo interface and PHP ext

[Mauro C. <inc...@ya...>]

Hi Tony, hi to all,

I'm continuing dev xmlroff php extension and study
libfo.

my problem is that actualy the only way to work with
libfo is to write tmp file.

I'agree the libfo abstract from xml implementation.

I've found two solution:

1) include libxml in xmlroff php ext and then set
FoXmlDoc->xml_doc directly.
(I've seen fo-xml-doc-private.h).

2) change libfo interface and allow for examples
fo_xml_doc_parse_file and fo_xml_doc_parse_memory, and
generally the possibility to work with mem and/or
file.

I have the same problem with the output result:
where can I get a pointer to result doc
(FoDocGP->job)?
is the output file written when fo_doc_gp_finalize is
invoked?

actually ext has OO interface, but no error bubbling.
tested only with PHP 4.4.2.
configuration file incomplete.

where can I release it? not possible to release it at
pecl.php.net due to licence incompatibility.


ciao

Mauro Casciari


		
___________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice: chiama da PC a telefono a tariffe esclusive 
http://it.messenger.yahoo.com

[xmlroff] [ANN] xmlroff 0.3.9

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

xmlroff 0.3.9 is now available from http://sourceforge.net/projects/xmlroff

This is a "clearing the decks before we make big changes" release since the
next release is likely to be xmlroff 0.4.0 which will implement Stefan's ideas
of including libfo-compat.xsl in the xmlroff executable and of bundling
PangoXSL with the xmlroff distribution to make things easier.  Hopefully there
will also be better scripting language support in 0.4.0.

Regards,


Tony.

------------------------------------------------------------

Changes between 0.3.8 and 0.3.9

* Added 'extent'


------------------------------------------------------------

2006-02-24  Tony Graham  <ton...@us...>

	* === Released 0.3.9 ===

	* NEWS: Updated for 0.3.9.

2006-02-23  Tony Graham  <ton...@us...>

	* expr/.cvsignore, fo/.cvsignore, libfo/.cvsignore,
	util/.cvsignore, datatype/.cvsignore, area/.cvsignore: Added
	.cvsignore files so 'cvs diff' ignores more auto-generated files.

	* area/fo-area-page.h: Removed trailing comma from FoAreaPageError
	definition.

	* fo/Makefile.am, fo/fo-fo.h: Added FO_DISABLE_DEPRECATED around
	deprecated fo_fo_area_new().

2006-02-22  Tony Graham  <ton...@us...>

	* xmlroff.fo: Updated to use current SourceForge project
	definition.

	* result-to-fo.c: Corrected a parameter name in a doc comment.

	* datatype/fo-length-bp-ip-d.h: Cosmetic changes only.

	* libfo/fo-libfo-basic.c:
	(fo_libfo_context_close) Setting libfo_context to NULL.

	* libfo/fo-libfo-context.c, libfo/fo-libfo-context.h: Corrected
	parameter name in prototype and comment.

2006-02-05  Tony Graham  <ton...@us...>

	* README: Added mention that compatibility info is in xmlroff
	manual.

	* property/fo-property-extent.c: Corrected initial value.

2006-01-16  Tony Graham  <ton...@us...>

	* fo-node.c, fo-object.c, fo-object.h, result-to-fo.c: Added
	fo_object_maybe_propagate_error().

	* fo/fo-fo.c, fo/fo-static-content.c, fo/fo-table-part.c,
	result-to-fo.h: Added 'continue_after_error' to
	FoPropertyResolveContext.

	* fo-context-private.h, fo-context.c, fo-context.h,
	fo/fo-region-after-private.h, fo/fo-region-after.c,
	fo/fo-region-after.h, fo/fo-region-before-private.h,
	fo/fo-region-before.c, fo/fo-region-before.h,
	fo/fo-region-end-private.h, fo/fo-region-end.c,
	fo/fo-region-end.h, fo/fo-region-start-private.h,
	fo/fo-region-start.c, fo/fo-region-start.h, property/Makefile.am,
	property/fo-all-property.h, property/fo-property-extent.c,
	property/fo-property-extent.h: Added 'extent' property.  Updated
	to match current spec-dump.

2005-12-14  Tony Graham  <ton...@us...>

	* fo/fo-block-layout.c, fo/fo-fo-private.h, fo/fo-fo.c,
	fo/fo-fo.h, fo/fo-static-content.c, fo/fo-table-part.c,
	libfo/fo-libfo-context.c, libfo/fo-libfo-context.h,
	libfo/fo-xsl-formatter.c, result-to-fo.c, result-to-fo.h,
	xmlroff.c, xmlroff.fo: Added option for continuing processing
	after formatting errors, but haven't yet made it do anything.

2005-12-13  Tony Graham  <ton...@us...>

	* configure.in: Upped version to 0.3.9.

[xmlroff] [ANN] PangoXSL 1.6.0.2

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

PangoXSL 1.6.0.2 is now available from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/pangopdf/

This version includes the correct LGPL license in 'COPYING'.

It also includes a fix by Tim Waugh for a minor bug in the SRPM spec file
generation.

Regards,


Tony.

Re: [xmlroff] First xmroff php extension test

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

"Mauro C." <inc...@ya...> writes:
...
> I have copied some .h manually:

In theory, all the .h files that you need to use libfo should be installed
when you run 'make install'.  If some are missing, please let me know.

> some in root of xmlroff source... still study xmlroff
> :)
>
> my intent is to provide php API like this:
>
> trasformFile(...);
> trasformMem(...);
> trasformDom(...); // XmlDocPtr
>
> i've notice that fo_xsl_trasformer accept only
> stylesheet filename.
>
> why not have interface to set xmldoc from a string or
> xmldocptr?

No-one has asked for it.

There's currently no mention of xmlDocPtr or other libxml2 or libxslt
constructs in the most of the libfo headers in an attempt to keep the
dependencies simple.

fo-xml-doc-private.h does have fo_xml_doc_get_xml_doc() and
fo_xml_doc_set_xml_doc() so you can create a libxml2 xmlDoc any way that you
want and then use fo_xml_doc_set_xml_doc(), but I can see that that doesn't
really satisfy your request.

I have tried to avoid references to libxml2, etc., in the public header files
so you can just use libfo without knowing about libxml2's xmlDoc.  That still
seems to me to be worthwhile, but so does creating an FoXmlDoc from a
xmlDocPtr.  Is fo-xml-doc-private.h sufficient, or is something else required?

Regards,


Tony.

Re: [xmlroff] PangoXSL license?

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

Stefan Seefeld <se...@sy...> writes:
> Tony Graham wrote:
>> Stefan Seefeld <se...@sy...> writes:
>>
>>>Tony Graham wrote:
>
>>>>So how would you propose PangoXSL be bundled with xmlroff?
>>>>How would it work for the SRPM package?
>>>
>>>Good question. if both modules are part of the same parent directory,
>>>may be that parent directory could contain some 'meta build system'
>>>that simply delegates to the subdirs for simple builds, but does
>>>a little more for packaging to avoid two distinct packages to be
>>>generated. I acknowledge this getting a bit involved, though...
>> I don't know how to run nested autoconf (or whatever the term may be).
>
> I typically set up a 'autogen.sh' script that just runs autoheader, autoconf,
> etc. in a batch for all subprojects. A toplevel configure.ac script would
> simply call AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS.

Cool.  I didn't know AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS existed, but it makes sense that it
does.

>> It may be possible to copy the essential parts of PangoXSL's configure.ac into
>> xmlroff's configure.in and just have xmlroff build PangoXSL.  It would require
>> some experimentation.
>
> That may work, too, depending on how much conflicting options there are for
> both. If this works, it's even simpler.

I think that AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS would make it easier to keep the two separate.

>>>PS: Did you consider switching to subversion (which sf.net now supports) ?
>>>    That would make it easier to modify a project's file system layout.
>> If Emacs works as well with subversion as it does with CVS.  If it takes more
>> than three keystrokes to check in a file, diff it, or get it's history, or if
>> I can't run `ediff-revision' on a file, then it's not worth it for me to
>> change.
>
> I think all that works nicely (I'm not quite sure about ediff-revision, which
> I haven't used yet myself). The main visible differences are:

ediff-revision can be very useful.

> * checkins are atomic, i.e. you get a list of all modified files that went
>   into a checkin
> * file / directory renaming works as expected and transparently
> * subversion keeps a copy of the last checked-out version of all files
>   on your disk, making it take up more space but allowing operations such
>   as 'status' and 'diff' be much faster, and even work when you are offline
>
>> Where are the details for SourceForge's support for subversion?
>
> subversion support on sf.net is 'experimental', though I know a number of
> projects that have switched successfully there. (I'v been using subversion
> myself for a long time now.)
>
> Here are the docs:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/docs/E09/en/

Thanks.  I've read that, and I'm now reading "Subversion for CVS Users" at
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/apa.html

There's also hope for Emacs.  See
http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/SubVersion

I think I'll try a local SubVersion project before switching xmlroff (or
PangoXSL).

Regards,


Tony.

Re: [xmlroff] First xmroff php extension test

[Mauro C. <inc...@ya...>]

--- Tony Graham <Ton...@Su...> ha scritto: 

> "Mauro C." <inc...@ya...> writes:
> > Hi to all,
> >
> > IMO with a php extension xmlroff could have more
> > audience, maybe someone interested only to use
> xmlroff
> > as black box but a lot of debug on xsl
> implementation.
> >
> > I know is more important devel feature.
> >
> > Some suggestion?
> >
> > --- Tony Graham <Ton...@Su...> ha scritto: 
> >
> >> "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?
> >
> > My first goal i to have something ready in few
> days :)
> >
> > Start to hack zend engine (php) and xmlroff tree
> days
> > ago.
> >
> > Only look libfo high level interface (i'll write
> my
> > opinion on interface later).
> 
> That would be useful, since AFAIK very few people
> have tried it.

I have copied some .h manually:

some in root of xmlroff source... still study xmlroff
:)

my intent is to provide php API like this:

trasformFile(...);
trasformMem(...);
trasformDom(...); // XmlDocPtr

i've notice that fo_xsl_trasformer accept only
stylesheet filename.

why not have interface to set xmldoc from a string or
xmldocptr?


> 
> ...
> >> What version of xmlroff did you use?
> >
> > source pkg:
> >
> > xmlroff-0.3.8
> >
> > atk-1.10.3
> > cairo-1.0.2
> > gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0
> > glib-2.9.6
> > gtk+-2.8.12
> > libgnomeprint-2.8.2
> > pango-1.11.5
> > pangoxsl-1.6.0.1
> > pkgconfig-0.18
> 
> atk and gtk+ should not be necessary for xmlroff.

need to compile gdk-pixbuf (recent version), so
compile 
 gtk.

> 
> cairo is necessary for the version of Pango that you
> are using but is not yet
> necessary for xmlroff.
> 
> > deb pkg:
> >
> > libart-2.0-2
> > libart-2.0-dev
> > fontconfig     2.3.1-2
> 
> fontconfig is used by Pango, not directly by
> xmlroff.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Tony.
> 
> 
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do
> you grep through log files
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search
> engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the 
> web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
>
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> xmlroff-list mailing list
> xml...@li...
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlroff-list
> 



		
___________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice: chiama da PC a telefono a tariffe esclusive 
http://it.messenger.yahoo.com

Re: [xmlroff] PangoXSL license?

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

Tony Graham wrote:
> Stefan Seefeld <se...@sy...> writes:
> 
>>Tony Graham wrote:

>>>So how would you propose PangoXSL be bundled with xmlroff?
>>>How would it work for the SRPM package?
>>
>>Good question. if both modules are part of the same parent directory,
>>may be that parent directory could contain some 'meta build system'
>>that simply delegates to the subdirs for simple builds, but does
>>a little more for packaging to avoid two distinct packages to be
>>generated. I acknowledge this getting a bit involved, though...
> 
> 
> I don't know how to run nested autoconf (or whatever the term may be).

I typically set up a 'autogen.sh' script that just runs autoheader, autoconf,
etc. in a batch for all subprojects. A toplevel configure.ac script would
simply call AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS.

> It may be possible to copy the essential parts of PangoXSL's configure.ac into
> xmlroff's configure.in and just have xmlroff build PangoXSL.  It would require
> some experimentation.

That may work, too, depending on how much conflicting options there are for
both. If this works, it's even simpler.

>>PS: Did you consider switching to subversion (which sf.net now supports) ?
>>    That would make it easier to modify a project's file system layout.
> 
> 
> If Emacs works as well with subversion as it does with CVS.  If it takes more
> than three keystrokes to check in a file, diff it, or get it's history, or if
> I can't run `ediff-revision' on a file, then it's not worth it for me to
> change.

I think all that works nicely (I'm not quite sure about ediff-revision, which
I haven't used yet myself). The main visible differences are:

* checkins are atomic, i.e. you get a list of all modified files that went
   into a checkin
* file / directory renaming works as expected and transparently
* subversion keeps a copy of the last checked-out version of all files
   on your disk, making it take up more space but allowing operations such
   as 'status' and 'diff' be much faster, and even work when you are offline

> Where are the details for SourceForge's support for subversion?

subversion support on sf.net is 'experimental', though I know a number of
projects that have switched successfully there. (I'v been using subversion
myself for a long time now.)

Here are the docs:

http://sourceforge.net/docs/E09/en/

Regards,
		Stefan

Re: [xmlroff] PangoXSL license?

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

Stefan Seefeld <se...@sy...> writes:
> Tony Graham wrote:
>> Stefan Seefeld <se...@sy...> writes:
>>>Tony Graham wrote:
>>>
>>>>If it could be relicensed, then it could be included in the xmlroff
>>>>distribution.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure I understand how it can make a difference license-wise
>>>whether you bundle PangoXSL and xmlroff into the same package or not.
>>>As long as the licenses are compatible, your package can include code
>>>distributed with as many different licenses as you want.
>>>
>>>Licenses typically talk about 'use' and 'link' etc., and that isn't
>>>affected at all by how you package things.
>> I think I finally understand your point.
>> So how would you propose PangoXSL be bundled with xmlroff?
>> How would it work for the SRPM package?
>
> Good question. if both modules are part of the same parent directory,
> may be that parent directory could contain some 'meta build system'
> that simply delegates to the subdirs for simple builds, but does
> a little more for packaging to avoid two distinct packages to be
> generated. I acknowledge this getting a bit involved, though...

I don't know how to run nested autoconf (or whatever the term may be).

It may be possible to copy the essential parts of PangoXSL's configure.ac into
xmlroff's configure.in and just have xmlroff build PangoXSL.  It would require
some experimentation.

> PS: Did you consider switching to subversion (which sf.net now supports) ?
>     That would make it easier to modify a project's file system layout.

If Emacs works as well with subversion as it does with CVS.  If it takes more
than three keystrokes to check in a file, diff it, or get it's history, or if
I can't run `ediff-revision' on a file, then it's not worth it for me to
change.

Where are the details for SourceForge's support for subversion?

Regards,


Tony.

Re: [xmlroff] First xmroff php extension test

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

"Mauro C." <inc...@ya...> writes:
> Hi to all,
>
> IMO with a php extension xmlroff could have more
> audience, maybe someone interested only to use xmlroff
> as black box but a lot of debug on xsl implementation.
>
> I know is more important devel feature.
>
> Some suggestion?
>
> --- Tony Graham <Ton...@Su...> ha scritto: 
>
>> "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?
>
> My first goal i to have something ready in few days :)
>
> Start to hack zend engine (php) and xmlroff tree days
> ago.
>
> Only look libfo high level interface (i'll write my
> opinion on interface later).

That would be useful, since AFAIK very few people have tried it.

...
>> What version of xmlroff did you use?
>
> source pkg:
>
> xmlroff-0.3.8
>
> atk-1.10.3
> cairo-1.0.2
> gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0
> glib-2.9.6
> gtk+-2.8.12
> libgnomeprint-2.8.2
> pango-1.11.5
> pangoxsl-1.6.0.1
> pkgconfig-0.18

atk and gtk+ should not be necessary for xmlroff.

cairo is necessary for the version of Pango that you are using but is not yet
necessary for xmlroff.

> deb pkg:
>
> libart-2.0-2
> libart-2.0-dev
> fontconfig     2.3.1-2

fontconfig is used by Pango, not directly by xmlroff.

Regards,


Tony.

Re: [xmlroff] First xmroff php extension test

[Mauro C. <inc...@ya...>]

Hi to all,

IMO with a php extension xmlroff could have more
audience, maybe someone interested only to use xmlroff
as black box but a lot of debug on xsl implementation.

I know is more important devel feature.

Some suggestion?

--- Tony Graham <Ton...@Su...> ha scritto: 

> "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?

My first goal i to have something ready in few days :)

Start to hack zend engine (php) and xmlroff tree days
ago.

Only look libfo high level interface (i'll write my
opinion on interface later).
 
> 
> > 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?

source pkg:

xmlroff-0.3.8

atk-1.10.3
cairo-1.0.2
gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0
glib-2.9.6
gtk+-2.8.12
libgnomeprint-2.8.2
pango-1.11.5
pangoxsl-1.6.0.1
pkgconfig-0.18

deb pkg:

libart-2.0-2
libart-2.0-dev
fontconfig     2.3.1-2
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do
> you grep through log files
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search
> engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the 
> web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
>
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> xmlroff-list mailing list
> xml...@li...
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlroff-list
> 

sorry for previous msg :(

Mauro Casciari


	

	
		
___________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB 
http://mail.yahoo.it

Re: [xmlroff] First xmroff php extension test

[Mauro C. <inc...@ya...>]

--- Tony Graham <Ton...@Su...> ha scritto: 

> "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?

F
xmlroff-0.3.8

atk-1.10.3
cairo-1.0.2
gdk-pixbuf-0.22.0
glib-2.9.6
gtk+-2.8.12
libgnomeprint-2.8.2
pango-1.11.5
pangoxsl-1.6.0.1
pkgconfig-0.18


> 
> > 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.
> 
> 
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do
> you grep through log files
> for problems?  Stop!  Download the new AJAX search
> engine that makes
> searching your log files as easy as surfing the 
> web.  DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
>
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
> _______________________________________________
> xmlroff-list mailing list
> xml...@li...
>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xmlroff-list
> 



	

	
		
___________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB 
http://mail.yahoo.it

Re: [xmlroff] PangoXSL license?

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

Tony Graham wrote:
> Stefan Seefeld <se...@sy...> writes:
> 
>>Tony Graham wrote:
>>
>>>If it could be relicensed, then it could be included in the xmlroff
>>>distribution.
>>
>>I'm not sure I understand how it can make a difference license-wise
>>whether you bundle PangoXSL and xmlroff into the same package or not.
>>As long as the licenses are compatible, your package can include code
>>distributed with as many different licenses as you want.
>>
>>Licenses typically talk about 'use' and 'link' etc., and that isn't
>>affected at all by how you package things.
> 
> 
> I think I finally understand your point.
> 
> So how would you propose PangoXSL be bundled with xmlroff?
> 
> How would it work for the SRPM package?

Good question. if both modules are part of the same parent directory,
may be that parent directory could contain some 'meta build system'
that simply delegates to the subdirs for simple builds, but does
a little more for packaging to avoid two distinct packages to be
generated. I acknowledge this getting a bit involved, though...

Regards,
		Stefan

PS: Did you consider switching to subversion (which sf.net now supports) ?
     That would make it easier to modify a project's file system layout.

Re: [xmlroff] PangoXSL license?

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

Stefan Seefeld <se...@sy...> writes:
> Tony Graham wrote:
>> If it could be relicensed, then it could be included in the xmlroff
>> distribution.
>
> I'm not sure I understand how it can make a difference license-wise
> whether you bundle PangoXSL and xmlroff into the same package or not.
> As long as the licenses are compatible, your package can include code
> distributed with as many different licenses as you want.
>
> Licenses typically talk about 'use' and 'link' etc., and that isn't
> affected at all by how you package things.

I think I finally understand your point.

So how would you propose PangoXSL be bundled with xmlroff?

How would it work for the SRPM package?

Regards,


Tony.

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.

[xmlroff] First xmroff php extension test

[Mauro C. <inc...@ya...>]

Hi to all,

I've just finish the first test on a xmlroff php
extension.

I use the xmlroff-libfo sample.

just experimental, not all testsuite-0.3.8 passed.

it depends maybe on my xmlroff installation:

some package installed from deb other from source, not
compiled with image support (fo:external-graphic
!?!?).

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


Mauro Casciari


		
___________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice: chiama da PC a telefono a tariffe esclusive 
http://it.messenger.yahoo.com

Re: [xmlroff] xmlroff's "story"?

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

Stefan Seefeld <se...@sy...> writes:
> Tony Graham wrote:
>> Stefan Seefeld <se...@sy...> writes:
>>
>>>Mauro C. wrote:
>>>
>>>>--- Tony Graham <Ton...@Su...> ha scritto:
>>>>
>>>>>I started the "What needs to be done to make xmlroff
>>>>>a success?"
>>>>
>>>>IMO a wrapper exetension for PHP and other scripting
>>>>language.
>>>
>>>What would that wrapper do that can't be done by calling
>>>system('xmlroff ...') ?
>> If the scripting language's XML DOM implementation is a thin layer over
>> libxml2's XMLdoc, then it becomes possible to pass a DOM straight to the
>> thinly wrapped libfo.
>
> I understand that. What I fail to see is that there is indeed a need for
> this level of optimization (or whatever else a programmatic interface to
> libfo provides), at this time.

Some people on this list do want that (and if they can help in implementing
it, so much the better), and it was among the most emphatic responses to the
question of how to make xmlroff a success.

You (AFAICT) and I don't use Windows much if at all, yet we are discussing not
whether but how to do a Windows version of xmlroff.  Not because we want to
use xmlroff on Windows ourselves, but because it could put xmlroff in front of
more people, in the hope that some of them will be enamoured/exasperated
enough with xmlroff to want to improve it.

The same argument can be applied to a SWIG wrapper over fo-libfo-basic.h.
While you're not convinced of the necessity, you can just put it down to the
"feel good" factor for script programmers: if it looks like it's built into
the language, they're more likely to use it, so they're more likely to be
enamoured/exasperated enough with xmlroff to want to improve it.

Regards,


Tony.

Re: [xmlroff] xmlroff's "story"?

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

Stefan Seefeld <se...@sy...> writes:
> Tony Graham wrote:
>
>> To boil that down to as few words as possible, it looks to me like people want
>> a high-quality, multi-platform formatter that excels at DocBook formatting and
>> that integrates easily with other programs and with scripting languages.
>> So how about that as the "story"?
>>    xmlroff is a high-quality, multi-platform XSL formatter that excels at
>>    DocBook formatting and that integrates easily with other programs and with
>>    scripting languages.
>
> That sounds good, though there is one important word amiss: 'free' !

I changed the SourceForge project desciption to:

   xmlroff is a fast, free, high-quality, multi-platform XSL formatter that
   excels at DocBook formatting and that integrates easily with other programs
   and with scripting languages.

Further suggestions for improvements are welcome.  As is help towards living
up to this description.

Regards,


Tony.

Re: [xmlroff] xmlroff's "story"?

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

Tony Graham wrote:
> Stefan Seefeld <se...@sy...> writes:
> 
>>Mauro C. wrote:
>>
>>>--- Tony Graham <Ton...@Su...> ha scritto:
>>>
>>>>I started the "What needs to be done to make xmlroff
>>>>a success?"
>>>
>>>IMO a wrapper exetension for PHP and other scripting
>>>language.
>>
>>What would that wrapper do that can't be done by calling
>>system('xmlroff ...') ?
> 
> 
> If the scripting language's XML DOM implementation is a thin layer over
> libxml2's XMLdoc, then it becomes possible to pass a DOM straight to the
> thinly wrapped libfo.

I understand that. What I fail to see is that there is indeed a need for
this level of optimization (or whatever else a programmatic interface to
libfo provides), at this time.
I don't doubt that this is nice-to-have. What I'm not sure about is whether
it really deserves to be on a wishlist for xmlroff when other items such
as feature-completeness should figure with far more scores in terms of
priority.
The user of such an API still needs to preprocess his dom tree (possibly by
means of the libxslt API by Daniel Veillard) to apply the libfo-compat.xsl
stylesheet, right ?


Regards,
		Stefan

Re: [xmlroff] xmlroff's "story"?

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

Stefan Seefeld <se...@sy...> writes:
> Mauro C. wrote:
>> --- Tony Graham <Ton...@Su...> ha scritto:
>>>I started the "What needs to be done to make xmlroff
>>>a success?"
>> IMO a wrapper exetension for PHP and other scripting
>> language.
>
> What would that wrapper do that can't be done by calling
> system('xmlroff ...') ?

If the scripting language's XML DOM implementation is a thin layer over
libxml2's XMLdoc, then it becomes possible to pass a DOM straight to the
thinly wrapped libfo.

Regards,


Tony.

Re: [xmlroff] PangoXSL license? [Was: xmlroff's "story"?]

[Stefan S. <se...@sy...>]

Tony Graham wrote:

> If it could be relicensed, then it could be included in the xmlroff
> distribution.

I'm not sure I understand how it can make a difference license-wise
whether you bundle PangoXSL and xmlroff into the same package or not.
As long as the licenses are compatible, your package can include code
distributed with as many different licenses as you want.

Licenses typically talk about 'use' and 'link' etc., and that isn't
affected at all by how you package things.

Regards,
		Stefan

Re: [xmlroff] xmlroff's "story"?

[Mauro C. <inc...@ya...>]

--- Stefan Seefeld <se...@sy...> ha scritto: 

> Mauro C. wrote:
> > --- Tony Graham <Ton...@Su...> ha scritto: 
> > 
> > 
> >>I started the "What needs to be done to make
> xmlroff
> >>a success?"
> > 
> > 
> > IMO a wrapper exetension for PHP and other
> scripting
> > language.
> 
> What would that wrapper do that can't be done by
> calling
> system('xmlroff ...') ?

better control on error handling, maybe performance.

> 
> Regards,
> 		Stefan


Mauro Casciari


	

	
		
___________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB 
http://mail.yahoo.it