--- 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]

Reply via email to