--- Rhett Aultman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Moreover, is FOP really that far from, say, the HTML
> rendering engine in a web browser with respect to
> layout decisions?  I see a lot of "interpretations"
> and "opinions" going on in those engines, which is
> why two browsers sometimes interpret my HTML table
> layouts in different ways.

Exactly--note there are two *different* browsers, each
choosing to implement the HTML standard differently,
each hoping their decision is the best for the most
number of users.  To me, multiple layout strategies is
really like saying multiple applications.  (After all,
the layout handler and renderers *form* an XSL FO

There are already plenty of teams trying to implement
the XSL FO spec, each making its own decisions on
which layouts/goals/tradeoffs, etc. are best.  FOP is
one of them--hopefully it will make the right
decisions to have a large "market share".  FOP's goals
should be (1) to be compliant/accurate with the spec,
and (2) be able to generate the largest numbers of
huge files in the smallest amount of time.

Instead of pluggable layout strategies, it may be 
better to have "compiler" switches for the various
output types that would allow the user to make goal #1
vs. goal #2 tradeoffs where appropriate.  We can put
them in the CLI, and others wishing to build a GUI on
top of FOP can nicely include them on options screens,


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).

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

Reply via email to