Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
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.
It is a slippery slope.
Otoh there are many ways a developer can bend Forrest out of shape so
why not leave it up to them and their clients to decide.
I guess if it defaults to _not_ carry over styles and the switch carries
a sufficient warning in place that should be ok.
Yes, it sounds reasonable. And Thorsten was careful to have a very clear
warning in the contract description.
However, I'm still concerned of posts to the user list of the form:
"My section is not appearing in the TOC"
"Everything looks fine in HTML but in PDF sections get all screwed up"
"My headings have an inconsitent format"
etc.
The potential problems are massive, and since we claim to give a uniform
output from inputs we are in danger of failng to deliver what we claim
to do so. Sure the user should know what is going on, after all there is
a warning in the contract description. But we all know users ignore
things they do not understand and go ahead anyway. It works on the first
test document so they spen time building a full site and then *bang*
half the documents don't work.
Ross
