Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-fop-dev-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 26748 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jan 2003 17:34:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: fop-dev@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list fop-dev@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 26706 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2003 17:34:07 -0000 Reply-To: From: "Victor Mote" To: Subject: RE: FOP compliance in XML? Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:34:06 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3E22B780.5050608@synclude.com> X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Benoit Maisonny wrote: > This looks perfect for my needs! > > I am working on an FO quick reference that includes compliance > information for fop and xep. A couple of caveats: 1) The html version on our website is misleading because the color-coding is scrubbed out in our forrest conversion (I am trying to get that fixed). 2) The content applies to 0.20.5, not the main branch. 3) The content might not be entirely accurate. It came from some other documents, which I think were a bit out of date. It is really intended as a good starting place. In particular, I think there are places where we say that FOP is in compliance, but where there are some limitations that need to be cross-referenced. Victor Mote --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org