Keiron Liddle wrote:
> 
> 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.

[..]

> 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.

I think too we should do a maintenance release (from 'fop-0_20_2-maintain'
branch).

I volunteer to do the necessary patches, do some testing etc. 


> Regards,
> Keiron.

Christian

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

Reply via email to