> -----Original Message----- > From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 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. >
Yes, and it even has been discussed this summer. Silly me forgot to check the archives *before* changing and committing :-) > > 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. Well, some consistency would indeed look prettier, i.e. fox:bookmarks / fox:bookmark or fox:outlines / fox:outline or (more verbose) fox:document-outline / fox:outline-item But for now, I think I can live with it. Greetz, Andreas
