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.
Victor,
I can't speak for Glen, but I wasn't referring to you. HEAD does not perform the sort of control-splicing between FO tree creation and area tree creation that is implied in the Recommendation as quoted. That's the "old argument".
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.
Lest there be any doubt in the minds of new developers, the first sentence of 3.1 Conceptual Procedure (from which I quoted) is, "This subsection contains a conceptual description of how formatting could work. This conceptual procedure does not mandate any particular algorithms or data structures as long as the result obeys the implied constraints." The reason I want to follow the model proposed is that I think it is the best way to go.
Peter -- Peter B. West <http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html>
