(comments inline) On 24.12.2003 19:02:41 Clay Leeds wrote: > On Dec 24, 2003, at 8:55 AM, Bernd Brandstetter wrote: > > On Wednesday 24 December 2003 15:39, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote: > >> Apparently this was admitted by earlier versions of the spec. Older > >> versions of FOP still supported this, but the latest version throws an > >> error... > > > > wouldn't it be reasonable to also accept the obsolete 'master-name' > > and to > > just print out a corresponding warning message instead of throwing an > > error? AFAIK, the attribute has only been renamed to > > 'master-reference', > > but its meaning and usage remained identically the same. > > > > Regards, > > Bernd > > +1 (if non-votes count! ;-) )
Votes by committers only, but opinions from developers always count. > In fact, I would love to see this considered a "bugfix" for the 0.20.5 > maintenance release, as I believe it would help people upgrade from > 0.20.4 (or lower) to 0.20.5 and higher. Backward-compatibility is > always a nice thing--especially if it's as "easy" as this appears to > be. Why? Just because the NIST test suite has never been updated to the final spec? Carmelo Montanez recently promised to fix that. The XSL-FO spec is now over two years old. I think everone can be expected to upgrade their stylesheets to XSL-FO 1.0. It simply makes no sense to keep pre-recommendation syntax around and I think we have more pressing issues in the project right now. Jeremias Maerki
