On 2001.11.30 15:39 Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> At 4:48 PM -0400 11/29/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> This was already a known thing, and Norman Walsh pointed it out also.
> There is simply no point in fixing this until the FOP rewrite emerges.
> That's your choice. However, you should realize that this is going to 
> cause a lot of confusion for many users. It basically condemns FOP to 
> irrelevance until the rewrite is finished. I'm personally going to have 
> pull references to FOP out of the online XML Bible chapters and the next 
> edition of XML in a Nutshell, and switch my own toolchains over to 
> PassiveTeX. Although this is a small change conceptually, it is one that 
> affects pretty much *every* XSL-FO document anyone is ever going to 
> write.
> FOP has a large mindshare because it was first and because it is open 
> source. Leaving this minor change until the rewrite is done is pretty 
> much going to abandon the competitive advantages FOP has gained by being 
> first. People will move to PassiveTeX, XEP, Antenna House, and other 
> products instead. If that's OK with you, then that's your choice. Just 
> make sure this is in fact what you want to happen.

To put it another way.
I could keep doing all the small things for everyone while telling them 
that a whole set of problems will be solved at some indefinite time in the 
future which keeps getting further away. This will also eventually condemn 
FOP to irrelevance.
Doing that will also mean that other people are not able to get involved 
with FOP as there is a major change that needs to happen to get many 
things working properly.

If people really insist then I can make a release soon. This will delay 
any other important improvements.

If someone else really thinks there are things that need doing then I 
strongly suggest that you get busy and do them.

Does anyone else have any better suggestions? I would be glad to hear them.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to