On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 13:01, Peter B. West wrote: > There is an implication in what you are saying that you do have the > direction forward for the FO processor "internalised", so to speak, > and > that a complete FO processor is, as Christian says, just a matter of > time. I, and I suspect Arved, wonder why that is not clear to > everyone. > You have a great track record in FOP over a long period, and if you > insist that the redesign is moving towards completion, I would be > inclined to believe you, but I do need to be shown how. Arved also > has > a great track record over many years in FOP, and Arved seems to be > skeptical.
Please define "redesign". The following things are at least better than anywhere else: area tree, image handling, pdf lib, svg, renderer. Fo tree is better than the maintanence branch. If you are referring to the layout then I can't say that it is anywhere near completion, but in general it is currently better than the maintanence branch. (lack of a number of features and missing words aside) It seems to me that a lot of the arguments are of this type: http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/straw.htm As far as I am concerned it is largely irrelevant whether the particular layout design is 100% correct. Yes it is extermely important and will be best tackled by breaking it down into smaller problems. But so far I have only heard arguments against two methods in the layout managers, getting breaks and reset. Sure it probably would be helpful to design a layout algorithm isolated from all the other stuff and that is something that someone could pursue. Believe me, I can find plenty of other things to do that have no relation to the layout. Still, from my perspective it is a high priority to get it to a level similar to the maintanence branch, this will make fixing bugs, responding to users, integration with other projects documentation etc. a lot easier. Then to move forward from there. > In any case, I would like to be able to make useful suggestions > concerning the redesign. I have many times in the past expressed the > genuine hope for the success of FOP by whatever path, and I had never, > until recently, even suggested that anyone commit to alt.design over > the > HEAD redesign. I cannot, however, commit to a design that I either do > not understand, or do not have any confidence in. Who can? If all you care about is a perfect layout then that is reasonable, then reduce the problem/difference to the layout. Most users care more about lots of other issues. Catering for these users will help us IMHO. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
