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]

Are you guys referring to me? My last word on the subject is here:
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

Reply via email to