Arved wrote: > But if I have 5 hours a week to > spend on FOP, is > that not better spent recording what I know about FOP design and > implementation, and making that information available? It's > sort of like the > Biblical saying about providing people with fish (which is > what I've been > doing), as opposed to teaching people to fish. Not only that, > telling them > _where_ they should fish. :-) I think this will help fop a lot! > Perhaps you saw my recent post to Karen Lease and others > (that Karen replied > to) that was along these lines, somewhat, albeit focusing on > tables. So I > think the thought has been on the radar horizon. Yes I saw it and was happy to read it. I could has written a 'me to' kind of comment, becouse that aproach will make fop a robust product wich maybe only handle a subset of the specification, but do it well. IMHO fop is far better of doing some sort of things rigth in a consequent/concise manner, than trying to implement all the specs partially or locally. And as you point it, if it work on tables chances are it works allover. MVH Ronald --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
