"Victor Mote" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 12.06.2004 17:35:04:

> 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.

AFAICS, the cited part of the XSL-FO recommendation only mandates that
for refinement the formatter needs feedback from the area tree in some
situations. It's just a hint to implementors: hey, it's not as simple
as it looks - it's not a pure sequential process. That's it.

Let's also remember that "refinement" and "area tree" are artifacts used 
to
formally describe the *result* of the formatting process. There is no 
reason
to believe there must be a refinement step or even an area tree as such in
an implementation.

Of course, directly following the conceptual procedure outlined in the
recommendation makes it easiest to validate that the implementation is 
"right",
but I don't see that it necessarily leads to the "best" implementation.

Victor's comment 
(http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=107074009107318&w=2)
is perfectly valid IMO.

Also IMO, design discussions should be about evaluating opportunities 
in the first place and finding and eliminating showstoppers in the second
place. If the benefits of a certain design are important enough and this
is seen so by several people, the chances are good that the perceived
showstoppers can be eliminated.

I think this also applies to Peter's current suggestions.

My 2 cents,

Arnd
-- 
Arnd Bei▀ner
Cappelino Informationstechnologie GmbH

Reply via email to