Hi, Christian

That would be much appreciated. As before, I can do the actual release
itself once someone has notified me (read "the list") that they think the
time is right.

As regards the topic in general, I support Keiron 100%. The entire point of
the rewrite is that during the process things are in limbo...this was well
understood before, or so I thought. Making improvements to a pre-rewrite
release such as FOP-0.20.2 should not use any cycles from the most
productive coders we currently have on this project. IMHO. Which is why
having others chip in is much appreciated.

I can spare enough time to support commits to FOP-0.20.2, and minor work,
since I am currently most definitely _not_ a productive coder. :-) I'd plead
time pressure, which has been a major factor, but to be honest what I have
really been much of this year is simply burnt out on Java. I am much less
enthused about it than I was before, and for the past 2 years, after using
it at work every single day (J2EE, J2ME) I hardly wanted to use it again in
my own time.

I say that simply so the other committers become aware of what the situation
is. I have most definitely not lost interest in FOP or XSL-FO - I just need
a rest from Java, rather badly. But in any case I can support minor work
such as this maintenance release. I am currently working on a contract which
has absolutely zero to do with Java and XML (it's SQL, C++, ASP), which is
so refreshing that I cannot even begin to describe it. :-) Hopefully that'll
clear my head and allow me to get back into Java coding again.

Arved Sandstrom

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Geisert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2001 12:27 PM
Subject: Re: FOP conformance

> 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
> > > pull references to FOP out of the online XML Bible chapters and the
> > > edition of XML in a Nutshell, and switch my own toolchains over to
> > > PassiveTeX. Although this is a small change conceptually, it is one
> > > 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
> 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]

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

Reply via email to