Re: First xmroff php extension test

"Mauro C." <[email protected]> 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.



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