El mié, 19-04-2006 a las 20:34 +0100, Ross Gardler escribió: > 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.
I did not see a vote on it and interpreted your -1 as stating your personal opinion. > 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. Please call a vote on it to make sure we stand on common ground. If forrest do not want to include the contract I will make it available on a non-asf server. No problem at all. -- thorsten "Together we stand, divided we fall!" Hey you (Pink Floyd)
