Menu
▾
▴
xmlroff-list
|
From: Steve C. <g3c...@cd...> - 2004-08-14 00:20:42
|
Hello *! I have downloaded the latest versions of xmlroff and pangopdf and tried it out. No problems with the building of the packages. This is with PDFlib; nothing wrong with gnome-print, I just didn't have time to download all the dependencies. Unfortunately I have to find out the user-unfriendly way that xmlroff doesn't seem to support CSS-style shorthand properties, at least for "margin". If I attempt to use it, I get a barrage of libfo critical errors and xmlroff then either aborts or segfaults. When I separate it to the various "margin-*" properties xmlroff works fine[*]. (This may be the answer to a previous post by Giuseppe Greco.) Whoever is in charge (I guess Tony Graham?) may want to document this. Anyway thanks for writing xmlroff. [*] This is of course with a very simple FO document I created, nothing from big stylesheets :) I'm still learning FO right now. -- Steve Cheng 鄭君博 docbook2X: <URL:http://docbook2x.sourceforge.net/> |
|
From: Tony G. <Ton...@Su...> - 2004-08-15 21:49:35
|
Steve Cheng <g3c...@cd...> wrote at Fri, 13 Aug 2004 20:20:31 -0400: > Hello *! Hello and welcome. Please subscribe to the xmlroff mailing list if you want to continue to discuss xmlroff. > I have downloaded the latest versions of xmlroff and > pangopdf and tried it out. No problems with the building > of the packages. That's good to hear. > This is with PDFlib; nothing wrong with gnome-print, > I just didn't have time to download all the dependencies. What OS are you using? If you are using a recent version of Linux or Solaris you should have most of the libraries that you need. > Unfortunately I have to find out the user-unfriendly way > that xmlroff doesn't seem to support CSS-style shorthand > properties, at least for "margin". If I attempt to use it, > I get a barrage of libfo critical errors and xmlroff then > either aborts or segfaults. When I separate it to the various > "margin-*" properties xmlroff works fine[*]. (This may be > the answer to a previous post by Giuseppe Greco.) The lack of support stems from working on 'Basic' conformance before 'Complete'. The individual properties are part of 'Basic' conformance, and the shorthands are part of 'Complete'. Shorthand support is yet another of those things that are in progress. The 'padding' shorthand has been done. I can give you advice about what to work on if you want to implement the rest. The user unfriendliness is unplanned. Please submit a bug report. > Whoever is in charge (I guess Tony Graham?) may want to Tony Graham in his spare time. > document this. Anyway thanks for writing xmlroff. Conformance is documented at http://xmlroff.org/conformance.html The stylesheet at examples/xml2003/fixup.xsl will munge your FO to expand shorthands and remove unsupported FOs so your FO file has a better chance of working with xmlroff. > [*] This is of course with a very simple FO document I created, > nothing from big stylesheets :) I'm still learning FO right now. > > -- > Steve Cheng > 鄭君博 > > docbook2X: <URL:http://docbook2x.sourceforge.net/> It's a small world. I'm still trying to find the time to use your TeX markup so I can convert the XSL spec into info files so I can distribute it with my XSL mode for Emacs. Regards, Tony. |
|
From: Steve C. <g3c...@cd...> - 2004-08-16 15:41:47
|
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Tony Graham wrote: > Hello and welcome. Please subscribe to the xmlroff mailing list if > you want to continue to discuss xmlroff. I was going to, but my current email is broken, but what the heck, I'll just use this alternate account instead... > What OS are you using? If you are using a recent version of Linux or > Solaris you should have most of the libraries that you need. Turns out not much downloading was needed. (I am using Debian testing distribution, just had to apt-get install libgnomeprint2.2-dev.) I'll try building with gnome-print later. > The lack of support stems from working on 'Basic' conformance before > 'Complete'. The individual properties are part of 'Basic' > conformance, and the shorthands are part of 'Complete'. Oh, I see, please don't expect me to have digested all of the XSL-FO spec just yet :) > > docbook2X: <URL:http://docbook2x.sourceforge.net/> > > It's a small world. I'm still trying to find the time to use your TeX > markup so I can convert the XSL spec into info files so I can > distribute it with my XSL mode for Emacs. Soon I will just write that thing myself --- don't worry, I consider that for a package for making documentation to have incomplete documentation itself a serious deficiency :) -- Steve Cheng 鄭君博 docbook2X: <URL:http://docbook2x.sourceforge.net/> |
|
From: Tony G. <Ton...@Su...> - 2004-08-16 17:12:00
|
Steve Cheng <g3c...@cd...> wrote at Mon, 16 Aug 2004 11:41:45 -0400: > On Sun, 15 Aug 2004, Tony Graham wrote: ... > > What OS are you using? If you are using a recent version of Linux or > > Solaris you should have most of the libraries that you need. > > Turns out not much downloading was needed. (I am using Debian testing > distribution, just had to apt-get install libgnomeprint2.2-dev.) > I'll try building with gnome-print later. I've updated http://xmlroff.org/building.html to include the names of the RPMs you'd need to install for the libraries that have RPMs. > > The lack of support stems from working on 'Basic' conformance before > > 'Complete'. The individual properties are part of 'Basic' > > conformance, and the shorthands are part of 'Complete'. > > Oh, I see, please don't expect me to have digested all of the XSL-FO spec > just yet :) Considering that's in Appendix B, it would take you a while to find it if you're reading from front to back. I have updated http://xmlroff.org/conformance.html and http://xmlroff.org/implementation-sequence.html to add back the colours that they used to have a while ago. That should make it easier to sort out what is and isn't supported. Regards, Tony. |
|
From: Tony G. <Ton...@Su...> - 2004-08-20 15:52:59
|
Steve Cheng <g3c...@cd...> wrote at Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:13:29 -0400: > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Steve Cheng wrote: > > > I don't use RPM, but does that work? I mean, > > doesn't the xmlroff building page say that you need to patch GNOME Print > > to use PangoPDF? > > Some observations: > > 1. The building xmlroff page says there are directions to patch GNOME print > in the xmlroff distribution, but I didn't find any. Maybe I'm dumb. There used to be. It's the patching that turned out to be dumb. > 2. I sincerely hope that I can tell the patched GNOME print to build > libraries with a separate name so as to not clobber the system GNOME print. Don't patch. The instructions need to be removed. > 3. The PangoPDF home page have the wrong versions listed as current. It will be updated (eventually). > 4. Just what is really different/new in PangoPDF from regular Pango? > I'm using Pango myself right now for a project I'm working on, > despite the lack of tutorial documentation it was a breeze to use, > so I can't imagine it would be that hard to have the new functionality > go in the main Pango :) The PDFlib backend would never go in because of PDFlib's license. I didn't realise that when I started. Pango and GNOME Print work together better than they ever used to, possibly in part due to my enhancement request [1], which is why I'm hopeful about the current Pango obviating much of PangoPDF. The extra PangoAttributes could be submitted to Pango if they're cooked enough. I quite like the callback attribute, myself, but it's only had one limited use, and that is in the wrong backend. Regards, Tony. [1] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125762 |
|
From: Steve C. <g3c...@cd...> - 2004-08-20 16:48:22
|
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Tony Graham wrote: > There used to be. It's the patching that turned out to be dumb. All right, but right now I am having difficulties building the gnome-print backend, linking errors with many library functions. May be I need a new version of the libraries. But: The "Source" URI of gnome-print on the building xmlroff page is misleading; it points to the directory for version 2.2 even though version 2.3 (or later) is claimed to be required. Tony, I also think it will be helpful if you also post the exact versions of the packages you use, because if I try the newest version of gnome-print (2.7.1) it says it needs Pango 1.5, which even if I had it installed, I would have serious doubts about it working with PangoPDF / xmlroff. > The PDFlib backend would never go in because of PDFlib's license. I > didn't realise that when I started. > > Pango and GNOME Print work together better than they ever used to, > possibly in part due to my enhancement request [1], which is why I'm > hopeful about the current Pango obviating much of PangoPDF. > > The extra PangoAttributes could be submitted to Pango if they're > cooked enough. I quite like the callback attribute, myself, but it's > only had one limited use, and that is in the wrong backend. Thanks for the information; I will take a closer look some time. -- Steve Cheng 鄭君博 docbook2X: <URL:http://docbook2x.sourceforge.net/> |
|
From: Tony G. <Ton...@Su...> - 2004-08-20 16:35:38
|
Steve Cheng <g3c...@cd...> wrote at Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:13:29 -0400: > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Steve Cheng wrote: > > > I don't use RPM, but does that work? I mean, > > doesn't the xmlroff building page say that you need to patch GNOME Print > > to use PangoPDF? > > Some observations: > > 1. The building xmlroff page says there are directions to patch GNOME print > in the xmlroff distribution, but I didn't find any. Maybe I'm dumb. Patch instructions removed. ... > 3. The PangoPDF home page have the wrong versions listed as current. Updated. Regards, Tony. |
|
From: Steve C. <g3c...@cd...> - 2004-08-20 14:50:42
|
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Tony Graham wrote: > I've updated http://xmlroff.org/building.html to include the names of > the RPMs you'd need to install for the libraries that have RPMs. I don't use RPM, but does that work? I mean, doesn't the xmlroff building page say that you need to patch GNOME Print to use PangoPDF? (I think that comment about patching should be emphasized in bold print, it was not obvious when one is in a hurry to build xmlroff! Happened in my case, was wondering why I couldn't build the GNOME print backend.) By the way, are there missing files in docs/ directory in the release tarball? I can't build the code documentation (on gtk-doc version 1.2). -- Steve Cheng 鄭君博 docbook2X: <URL:http://docbook2x.sourceforge.net/> |
|
From: Steve C. <g3c...@cd...> - 2004-08-20 15:13:42
|
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Steve Cheng wrote: > I don't use RPM, but does that work? I mean, > doesn't the xmlroff building page say that you need to patch GNOME Print > to use PangoPDF? Some observations: 1. The building xmlroff page says there are directions to patch GNOME print in the xmlroff distribution, but I didn't find any. Maybe I'm dumb. 2. I sincerely hope that I can tell the patched GNOME print to build libraries with a separate name so as to not clobber the system GNOME print. 3. The PangoPDF home page have the wrong versions listed as current. 4. Just what is really different/new in PangoPDF from regular Pango? I'm using Pango myself right now for a project I'm working on, despite the lack of tutorial documentation it was a breeze to use, so I can't imagine it would be that hard to have the new functionality go in the main Pango :) -- Steve Cheng 鄭君博 docbook2X: <URL:http://docbook2x.sourceforge.net/> |
|
From: Tony G. <Ton...@Su...> - 2004-08-20 16:53:56
|
Steve Cheng <g3c...@cd...> wrote at Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:48:17 -0400: > On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Tony Graham wrote: > > > There used to be. It's the patching that turned out to be dumb. > > All right, but right now I am having difficulties building the gnome-print > backend, linking errors with many library functions. May be I need a new > version of the libraries. But: I don't have time to answer today. Sorry. I use GNOME Print 2.3, I believe (but that's not this machine). Regards, Tony. |
|
From: Tony G. <Ton...@Su...> - 2004-08-21 21:28:07
|
Steve Cheng <g3c...@cd...> wrote at Fri, 20 Aug 2004 12:48:17 -0400: ... > The "Source" URI of gnome-print on the building xmlroff page is misleading; > it points to the directory for version 2.2 even though version 2.3 (or > later) is claimed to be required. I have libgnomeprint 2.2.1.2 on one machine and 2.3.0 on another. I have only just started trying to get xmlroff working with Pango (or PangoPDF) 1.5.1 and libgnomeprint 2.7.1. Pango 1.5.1 compiled okay, but libgnomeprint has a dependency that I didn't expect for a Perl XML module, so I have to dig that out of the JDS distribution. I started my usual routine of updating PangoPDF to match the current Pango version, but there's so many differences that that now seems the wrong approach. I'm now going to start with the current xmlroff and a copy of the current Pango and make the minimum changes necessary to make them work with each other. In the short term, that may mean that some of the XSL inline properties go away for a while. We'll see. Regards, Tony. |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X