You have pre-empted my last post on this topic.

Keiron Liddle wrote:

> On 2002.03.14 10:55 Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>> Ok, nice. This seems more like evolution than revolution, am I right?
> You could say that.
> The code is forming a revolution, not the people. We needed to go back 
> a bit and approach things from a different angle.
>> Are there any projects underway to change the processing model?
> I'm not sure exactly what you mean but there are probably no projects 
> as such. Peter is looking at alternatives.
>> How about the new property resolving proposal.
> No active development that I am aware of. Maybe Peter can elaborate.

There is very active development on FO Tree building, property 
resolution and layout models.  A lot of that development is desisn 
speculation, such as the design notes I have been posting, and there is 
also a fair bit of code, all of which resides with my ISP, references to 
which I post every now and then.  Arved is, as you know, engaged in a 
C/C++ project for a fast, small footprint FO Processor over at 
SourceForge, and I copy all of my design discussions to him.  He has 
just committed another set of perl modules to his prototype.  The 
approach of both Arved and me is revolutionary rather than evolutionary, 
primarily, I think, because both of us feel that the requirements are so 
complex and interrelated that the design of all of the phases must 
proceed in parallel, which also means that everything is up for grabs.


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

Reply via email to