Yes, the way I see it, one of FOP's successes will be
our close adherence to JAXP.  Another one will be a
very strict and solid FO validation component--a "firm
handshake" that hopefully will paint FOP as a
Tomcat-like reference implementation for XSL.

BTW, Simon, and everyone else, there's about 30 or so
validateChildNodes() left to be written--many of them
quite complex.  Feel free to help out if you'd like!


--- "J.Pietschmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Simon Pepping wrote:
> > The code in Root shows that fox:bookmarks is the
> only allowed fox
> > child of fo:root. It is not clear that that is
> true. The web page
> > extensions.html does not even mention
> fox:bookmarks. The example file
> > examples/fo/basic/ clearly embeds
> fox:outline elements in
> > fox:bookmarks. The docbook stylesheets authors
> place fox:outline
> > elements directly in fo:root. FOP-0.20.5 has no
> problem with this
> > arrangement. Even if it is true, it creates
> compatibility problems.
> This was changed in the redesign, outlines for
> bookmarks must now
> be put into a fox:bookmark. Yes, this is
> incompatible but cleans up
> pathological cases like
>   <fo:root>
>     <fox:outline>...</fox:outline>
>     <fo:layout-master-set ... />
>     <fox:outline>...</fox:outline>
>     <fo:page-sequence>
>     </fo:page-sequence>
>     <fox:outline>...</fox:outline>
>     <fo:page-sequence>
>     </fo:page-sequence>
>   </fo:root>
> Some bookmarks in the above case wont be rendered,
> and it's quite
> difficult to reliably check for this condition. If
> there can only
> be a single fox:bookmark, error checking is much
> easier. Some would
> also claim it enforces better writing style.
> J.Pietschmann

Reply via email to