On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 08:15:38PM +0200, J.Pietschmann wrote:
> Glen Mazza wrote:
> >You have a new FO, you're going to need to code for
> >them--including ordering and cardinality--in those
> >parents that accept them,
> This does *not* necessarily mean that *you* should arrange
> that the extension writer has to replace core FO classes.
> In fact do either:
> 1. Declare FOP wont support extensions except in
> instream-foreign-object, ever, or
> 2. Provide hooks so that extension writers can get their
> extensions running with FOP, with or without extensive
> validation of the extended content model, but at least
> *without* having to rewrite and replace core FO classes.
My thoughts are along the same lines that Jörg has argued. I think we
should do option 2. vCN() should be written such that it allows this.
home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl