xmlgraphics-fop-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Glen Mazza <gma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: NPE
Date Tue, 07 Mar 2006 01:38:03 GMT
Andreas L Delmelle wrote:

> On Mar 6, 2006, at 10:05, Florent Georges wrote:
> 
>> Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 6, 2006, at 01:25, Florent Georges wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Well, AFAICT, it's not really empty from a SAX parser's
>>> point of view. It does contain a text-node, but this is
>>> completely ignored by FOP. The SAX characters() events are
>>> only handled for FOs that can contain #PCDATA.
>>
>>
>>   Mmh, I'm not sure to understand.  The document contains
>> some:
>>
>>     <fo:instream-foreign-object/>
>>
>> as well as some:
>>
>>     <fo:instream-foreign-object>...</fo:instream-foreign-object>
>>
>>   I guess you only saw the later.  Furthemore, if I
>> understand right ยง6.6.6 (mmh, ok, born to be a problematic
>> paragraph :-p):
> 
> 
> Yep, my mistake, I only saw the latter. Anyway, what I mean is that  the 
> SAX Parser used with FOP will report those three '.' characters.  That 
> is: any compliant XML parser MUST report those characters to the  
> application. Only FOP does nothing with them, and those characters  are 
> ignored.
> 
>>     Contents:
>>
>>     The fo:instream-foreign-object flow object has a child
>>     from a non-XSL namespace. The permitted structure of
>>     this child is that defined for that namespace.
>>
>>   So it is required to an IFO to have a child element, isn't
>> it?
> 
> 
> Yes. Exactly one child that is not in the XSL-FO namespace.
> 
>>   And to don't have non-whitespace #PCDATA.  Right?
> 
> 
> Hmm... Yes, if I catch your intention correctly.
> 
>> So an FO validator would have to report an error for both the
>> above IFOs, isn't it?
> 
> 
> I'd think so, yes. OTOH, if you have an i-f-o that contains some  text, 
> and then a foreign XML node, I'd assume that a warning would  suffice...
> 

I disagree, although not enough to resubscribe to FOP-DEV and veto such 
a matter.  PCDATA isn't allowed for fo:i-f-o.  Those FO's which may have 
PCDATA are expressly defined in the XSL specification.

I would rather every FOP-accepted XSL stylesheet be accepted by every 
commercial processor, than have the reverse, as the reverse would 
require watering down our validation to the extent that a FOP-accepted 
stylesheet is no longer a guarantee of XSL compliance (or anything 
else.)  "If your stylesheet is accepted by FOP it is as good as gold" is 
a nice selling point.

Glen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org


Mime
View raw message