After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 352044 - xsltproc should maybe support libpaper's /etc/papersize|PAPERSIZE|PAPERCONF
xsltproc should maybe support libpaper's /etc/papersize|PAPERSIZE|PAPERCONF
Status: RESOLVED INVALID
Product: libxslt
Classification: Platform
Component: general
unspecified
Other All
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: Daniel Veillard
libxml QA maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2006-08-19 16:20 UTC by Daniel Leidert
Modified: 2006-08-19 19:44 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: Unversioned Enhancement


Description Daniel Leidert 2006-08-19 16:20:00 UTC 
In the Debian BTS [1][2] it was requested, that for FO-output the value of /etc/papersize or gentenv("PAPERSIZE") should be respected. As Graham Wilson pointed out [3], this maybe should be done on the applications level. So I would like to request a feature, that automatically reads the libpaper config-file or environment variable and sets the page.type accordingly. There is also the LC_PAPER variable, which could be used [4]. So this is an alternative.

What is your opinion on this?

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/173093
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/382505
[3] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=173093;msg=10
[4] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=173093;msg=25

Regards, Daniel
Comment 1 Daniel Veillard 2006-08-19 16:55:11 UTC 
I can't see how this is supposed to relate to XSLT transformations
as defined in the XSLT-1.0 spec. So I don't see why xsltproc which is
an implementation of said spec should change its behaviour based on this.

Sorry, no this doesn't sound this should be added at the xsltproc level,
fine in wrapper scripts dedicated to transforming to print, but XSLT is
at a different logical level.

Daniel
Comment 2 Daniel Leidert 2006-08-19 17:07:29 UTC 
Sorry. It was really a stupid request and you are right. I was just thinking about docbook-xsl.
Comment 3 Daniel Veillard 2006-08-19 19:44:10 UTC 
Not stupid, it makes sense to handle this, but at a different level

Daniel