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, too. Jeremias Maerki
