Subject: Re: Underlined Text From: "Nikolai Grigoriev" <grig@xxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 03:47:20 +0400 |
Sebastian Rahtz wrote: > actually, the code is only right if you are using a year old version > of the draft spec, and not the current one. Right ;-). In an up-to-date FO implementation, fo:inline-sequence should become either fo:wrapper or fo:inline; but AFAIK in FOP's dialect, fo:inline-sequence is still valid. Anyhow, in our experiments with FOP two weeks ago, text-decoration was unsupported (see http://www.renderx.com/Demos/CMP). BTW: I do recommend this page to FOP users and developers (no kidding!). I have spent four days adapting our test cases to FOP, and I believe the resulting set of tests gives a clear picture of FOP's current state. (In my opinion, these files may be quite useful for FOP development team; it's a pity that we haven't got any feedback from them.) Regards, Nikolai Grigoriev RenderX XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Underlined Text, Sebastian Rahtz | Thread | Re: Underlined Text, Jon Smirl |
Re: Underlined Text, Sebastian Rahtz | Date | Re: Underlined Text, Jon Smirl |
Month |