On 29.08.2004 20:57:54 Simon Pepping wrote:
> 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.

While I choose not to participate in FO-tree and layout engine design
but having written a number of FOP extensions, I agree with this view,

Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to