Glen Mazza wrote: > > The FO input > > cannot be fully > > realised with a complete resolution of the properties, > which in turn > > relies on layout. (Old argument, I know.) > > > > Well, you should have taken the time to refer people to > places in the spec [1] which supported your > position-- maybe these arguments could have been avoided. > > [1] > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107503563018878&w=2
Are you guys referring to me? My last word on the subject is here: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107074009107318&w=2 and it has never been answered by Peter or Glen or anyone else. It is no longer a concern of mine that FOP has returned to a monolithic design, but I think it is a bit unfair to the new developers to imply that the XSL-FO standard mandates such a design, at least with the reasoning that has been offered so far. Victor Mote
