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! Glen --- "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/pdfoutline.fo 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 > >
