On Tuesday 15 May 2012 17:39:12 PM Jos van den Oever wrote: > On Tuesday 15 May 2012 16:44:29 PM Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote: > > Hi Jos, > > > > good stuff, we need more people working on this like you, thanks! > > /me looks at wall without mirror ;) > > It feels good that it's appreciated. I have a penchant for large scale > automated testing and leads to long lists of errors. I like that because it > gives a clear list of things to fix. Some get depressed by the list, but > it's really not so bad. The problems are very fixable and if the list > should evaporate due to developer heat, it will look very good for > Calligra. > > > Am Dienstag, 15. Mai 2012, 13:00:58 schrieb Jos van den Oever: > > > Hello all, > > > > > > Over the weekend I ported the script to test document round-tripping > > > and conversion from python to java. The advantage is an increase in > > > speed and better error messages. The runtime for the tests has > > > decreased from two hours to one hours and fifteen minutes. > > > > > > The main advantage is that the ODF documents are now validated with > > > Jing instead of libxml2. libxml2 has an incomplete implementation of > > > Relax NG and this led to false positives (reported errors that are not > > > real errors) and missed problems. > > > > > > Currently 528 failing documents and 2175 passing. So one in five > > > documents either crashes calligra or results in invalid ODF. > > > > A few of these invalid ODFs are about > > --- 8< --- > > token "0pt" invalid; must be a string matching the regular expression > > "([0-9]*[1-9][0-9]*(\.[0-9]*)?|0+\.[0-9]*[1-9][0-9]*|\.[0-9]*[1-9][0-9]*) > > ((cm)|(mm)|(in)|(pt)|(pc)|(px))" > > --- 8< --- > > > > From 18.3.18 length or 18.3.26 positiveLength I cannot directly see why > > "0pt" is not valid. Do I miss to read the spec correctly, is that > > knowledge not hardcoded in the spec, or is the regular expression used in > > the validator perhaps too strict? > > In the list of errors there are five messages that says that token '0pt' is > not ok. This is noted for the attributes style:border-line-width, > style:border-line-width-top, style:border-line-width-right, > style:border-line- width-left, style:border-line-width-bottom. > > All of these have a definition in the 1.2 spec like this: > > The values of the style:border-line-width attribute are three white space > separated values of type positiveLength 18.3.26. > > So, "0pt" is not correct, positiveLength means larger than 0. Also 3 > numbers are needed, so "1pt 10pt 1pt" would be a valid value. > > I've attached an example file with > <style:paragraph-properties fo:border="double" > style:border-line-width="1pt > 1cm 1pt" /> > and a pdf rendering by Calligra of that file.
That file shows no border in LibreOffice since it cannot parse "double", but it can parse "100pt double #000000", so i make a file with that value for fo:border so you can see the different rendering in Calligra and LibreOffice. Cheers, Jos
input7663852641347133356.odt
Description: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text
_______________________________________________ calligra-devel mailing list calligra-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
