Clay Leeds wrote:

> Unless I'm reading this wrong, this means the
> "headless" problem is directly related to AWT,
> and because Batik "uses AWT classes for rendering SVG"
> it is also indirectly affected. Am I correct?

Yes. Exactly.

> If so, should the "headless" FAQ really be in
> an AWT section, and the Batik section provide
> a reference to the AWT headless issue, rather
> than the current way it's shown?

That's debatable, I think, and depends on whether
you put on a user's hat or a technical hat. IMO,
the only important thing is that the
"Using fop with batik" documentation/faq/whatever
clearly states that Batik uses AWT, and if you want
to run Batik/AWT headless, then you do the following...

Overall, I'd say it's indeed better to just reference
the issue from the Batik section since other AWT
issues like fonts (within SVG content) may apply to
both the AWT renderer and Batik, too.

In that case, however, AWT FAQ/documentation sections
should be divided into two sections: issues that are
due to the AWT implementation(s), and issues that are
only specific to the AWT-based renderer.

Hope this helps,

Cappelino Informationstechnologie GmbH
Arnd Bei▀ner

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

Reply via email to