Thorsten Scherler wrote:
El mar, 18-04-2006 a las 22:28 -0700, Clay Leeds escribió:
On Apr 18, 2006, at 9:31 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
Web Maestro Clay wrote:
I'm not sure whether or not to suppress <style/>, but it would be
nice to have the ability to have 'on-the-fly' ODT styles.
I'm -1 on allowing abitrary styles though. The problem is that
Forrest attempts to provide a unified output formats regardless of
the input format. If we allow arbitrary styles through then we
loose the ability to do this because uses will create "headings" by
making text larger and bold, for example. Forrest has no way of
knowing this is supposed to be a heading and therefore cannot
render it as such.
Ross
I can understand that. I'll file the desire for on-the-fly styles
under the 'it would be nice...' flag. :-)
I added such a contract. I have not tested it (will do later) since I am
on my way out, but _should_ work. ;)
Last time I looked -1 from a committer was a blocker on code. I
appreciate that this optional, but I'm still not sure it is a good idea.
It will cause maintenance problems.
Of course, there is a nice big warning on there. What do other devs
think? Is this the top of a slippery slope? Should this contract be part
of a FAQ rather than included code?
I'll certainly consider switching to a -0 if people want to see this,
but I strongly caution against it. In my opinion it undermines the whole
purpose of Forrest.
Ross
