On 11/14/06, Matthew Krauss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gregory Brown wrote: > > On 11/13/06, Dudley Flanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> What's the problem with specifying a set of basic sections? > >> > I think having stock sections available to suit the majority of cases is > great. Of course, you will want these to be based on a more generalized > underlying mechanism that people can work with if they want/need. I > kind of thought that was where you were going already. Perhaps I'm > misunderstanding the discussion here?
It's not a matter of having them. It's a matter of whether they're independent of the renderer. I don't think they are. I think for say, a graph renderer, it has a default layout which you could override if you like. Not a graph renderer accepting a graph layout object. I think that's heavyweight. Though we're still not sure on how it'll look. This is something we're just going to have to feel out through code I suppose. > > Nothing at all. I just think agreeing on them and finding a set that > > will work for a large range of things is going to be difficult. > > You're talking about Printable documents with your sections, which is > > ok, but i'm not sure everything fits there. Paginating HTML will be > > tricky, for instance. > > > Well, you can take a page from the W3Cs book here. A header section can > be printed once for non-paginated media, and per-page for paginated > media. Just a suggestion. Thanks! _______________________________________________ Ruport mailing list [email protected] http://lists.stonecode.org/listinfo.cgi/ruport-stonecode.org
