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...
My beef is that, since I don't use Batik but do use the AWT renderer, I may not have found the "running FOP headless" solution.
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.
It does, and I'll look into how to provide a PATCH as Jeremias suggested. My guess is that my patch will involve adding an AWT section to the FAQ entitled "Using the AWT with FOP" or something.
Unfortunately, I don't know the particular issues IO should be aware of for this section as opposed to other sections. At present, although many problems relate to the AWT renderer (or its implementation[?]), there are no FAQs with AWT as the initial question. However, it appears that "headless" server (and apparently fonts w/in SVG) should go into this new section. I can make that patch, but if anyone has any other AWT-specific bugs which should be moved, let me know.
--
Clay Leeds - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Developer - Medata, Inc. - http://www.medata.com
PGP Public Key: https://mail.medata.com/pgp/cleeds.asc
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
