--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I don't understand your last statement, but I > agree that FOPResult is a > > better name than RenderType. > > Let's try different wording: The name "RenderType" > suggests that it is a > enumeration or a parameter, but it's more than that. >
Errr...I may not understand everything here, but aren't our inputs *just*: 1) xsl-fo stream (file, DOM Document, or inputStream) 2) render type (*is* either an enumeration directly, or could be represented as such--PDF, PS, etc.) Shouldn't we be leery of "render options" where one specifies properties of how the output should look outside of what is specified by the XSL-FO file? (If there are output properties that cannot be specified sufficiently by XSL-FO 1.0, well, that's what FOP extensions or XSL-FO 2.0 would be for, correct?) Just curious what others are thinking here. Glen __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
