--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have nothing more to say about this. I want to
> spend my time on more
> productive things now.

Jeremias, I'm going to veto (-1) your change.  I would
like the content model restored to the XSL standard
and the FONode.removeNode() method removed.

Technical reasons:

1.)  Your content model change is not in agreement
with either the 1.0 or 1.1 spec.  You did not make a
request to the W3C recommending that they make the
change to the specification.  Our responsibility is to
implement the standard, if we need to diverge from it
we need to inform them first.

I already explained to you[1], via fo:wrapper and
fo:page-sequence-wrapper, that they already make
allowances in order to ease coding.  (Even though I
may not like those changes personally.)

We are not like a commercial product where we can just
ignore the content models, we have a charter and a
community responsibility to fulfill.

2.)  You failed to explain how an empty fo:table-body
could possibly be of use to stylesheet writers, or how
it would simplify their work.  I was able to debunk
what you wrote in my response[2].  All you did say was
that it is illegal and not useful, basically
strengthening my argument.

3.)  As I explained to you, due to the new
relationship between FO's and LM's, our architecture
no longer supports FO's deciding whether or not to be
attached to a LM.  I gave you the opportunity to
discuss moving back to the older architecture, but you
chose to ignore it--instead challenging me to find a
better way.  That was my question: do we need to move
back to the old method?

4.)  The change involved would leave vague of how to
implement a table header if there is no table-body,
worse, it would lead to abuse of the fo:table to just
have headers printed.  None of this is backed up by
the spec--we would be in fantasyland on how to
interpret fo:tables without fo:table-bodies.

5.)  You're relying a dubious distinction of strict
vs. relaxed validation, which has no basis in the
spec.  The content models for the FO's form the
contract of the language that the XSL processor is to
accept.  Not validating at the source requires more &
repeated checking downstream, clogging the logic in
those places, and creating far more sources of error. 
All this for an item that you yourself say is of no
practical use?

6.)  Adhering to the XSL model makes the Apache FOP
process the gold standard of validators--an XSL file
is not legitimate unless FOP accepts it.  Painting FOP
as a reference implementation will do wonders for us,
just as it has for Tomcat.  I *will* support
divergences from it, but we have to (1) discuss it
beforehand, (2) there has to be a legitimate reason
for it--not just saving someone a five-line XSLT
template that should be properly written anyway--(3)
and explain to the W3C our suggestion first.

7.)  I already implemented the official validation. 
You cannot remove it and then tell me if I want it I
have to reimplement it again in a different manner. 
The burden is on you for that.  Our validation unit
has to be able to support the spec.  

Jeremias, I gave you a full, thorough, and
respectfully written explanation of the issues
involved.  Not only did you mostly ignore it, but in
your response you chose to use my earlier smaller
email in order to give others the impression that I
had nothing more to say.  This is terrible leadership
on your part--railroading a change without discussion
and refusal to discuss the change afterwords.  I
simply can't support this behavior, hence my veto.

BTW, letting yourself be known to the W3C by writing
to them on occasion would appear to be a smart move
for you--I don't know why you are fighting this.




Reply via email to