--- Finn Bock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > however, is probably preferable--the word
> "Property"
> > figures quite highly in the spec! Do you have a
> > problem remaining with it?
>
> Not at all, it is just that I though it would be
Good--we can stick with "Property" then.
>
> Indeed. Which package should the resulting rolled
> datatype/property be
> placed in? My feeling says fop.datatypes (and the
> nested makers should
> be unnested and placed in fop.fo.properties). But
> that is a separate
> suggestion which does not have to be dealt with
> initially.
>
Yes, it doesn't matter right now--do what you think is
best, we can rearrange them later if needed.
Unnesting is fine--I particularly liked the new
"PropertyMaker" class.
One issue--before I forget--in the FOPropertyMapping,
for the colors, we have a huge set of
genericColor.addKeyword("blue", "#....");
genericColor.addKeyword("red", "#....");
etc... etc...
I just noticed, however, that the datatypes.ColorType
class already has color types predefined within it.
Do we really need to have both? I think we can get
rid of one or the other, correct?
> I still like
> the null return and null test better than the
> alternatives tho.
>
OK. Sounds good. The patch looks fine to me.
Thanks,
Glen
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
