Re: cvs commit: xml-fop/src/java/org/apache/fop/fo/pagination Root.java

[Glen Mazza]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas L. Delmelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 2:58 PM
Subject: RE: cvs commit: xml-fop/src/java/org/apache/fop/fo/pagination
Root.java


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andreas L. Delmelle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> <snip />
> > Hope the use of the bookmarks extension wasn't meant to be
> > changed in HEAD.
>
> Oops. Just noticed that a Bookmarks class has been added to the extensions
> package...
>

1.0's bookmarks are different from 0.20.5's, the former has fox:bookmarks as
the "parent" element.  It's been that way in 1.0 for a long time, before I
came on board I believe.


> What's going to be the prescribed usage pattern for it?
> Is it going to be:
> &lt;fox:bookmark>
>   &lt;fox:outline internal-destination="...">
>     &lt;fox:label>...&lt;/fox:label>
>   ...
>   &lt;/fox-outline>
> &lt;/fox:bookmark>
>
> Seems rather awkward, since one fox:bookmark can contain the whole set of
> bookmarks for the entire document (?)
>

I don't like the nomenclature we have in FOP 1.0 that much.  fox:outline
comes from the PDF specification's term for a bookmark, but the PDF spec
calls it an "outline item", and fox:bookmarks (parent level, holding all the
outline items) IIRC is called a "document outline" in the PDF spec.  I guess
fox:bookmarks (top-level), and fox:bookmark(child elements) might be better,
but better enough to warran switching what we currently have?  I'm unsure.

Glen