On Sep 16, 2005, at 12:15, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Absolutely no resentment here. I'm sorry for sending the wrong signals.
I simply realized that I was not clear enough that the stuff I wrote is
just my opinion. Stuff like that always happens if I don't want to lose
too much time. Sigh.
Ok, I'm glad. I just tend to bring in a bit of humor at times, and
sometimes that comes across totally differently (more rudely) than I
I will probably dial down
my efforts on FOP just a little bit when the first release is out.
worry: no plans to go a away!
Phew, that's a relief as well! I noticed that you were one of the few
people to actually respond to any of my questions/remarks, so far.
Wouldn't like to lose that. It would be like talking to myself :-)
If you'd really hate to receive an error message, then don't do it.
It's as simple as that. You'll receive that error message once, and
you'll immediately know how to avoid it the next time, no?
Yes, sure, but the problem is that in this case I think it's no error.
I wonder what the others think about this. No other comments so far.
:-( Everyone is probably avoiding another nasty thread. *bg*
That's probably the key to the above remark. Manuel recently apologized
for not being able to offer a viewpoint because he feared he was not
knowledgeable enough. I don't mind, I just like to hear/consider as
many viewpoints as possible. No matter if you have extensive knowledge
or not, just add any comments. Even if you think they don't help much,
someone else might just get the spark he needs to light the fire.
So, I'm still wondering whether it wouldn't be more convenient --from
the POV of the implementor, not the user-- to simply consider it an
That's always dangerous IMO. We should always be focused on the user.
True enough. I'll keep trying to find a solution to it for the time
The question remains: how many times does that happen in reality? Do
you, personally, use starts-row/ends-row very frequently?
No. I always use table-row.
All things considered, we definitely could be relaxing/forgiving for
the case where a cell has an explicit ends-row="true" and the next
lacks an explicit starts-row="true"... I see no problem with that. On
the contrary, this would be dealt with automatically. If you'd really,
really hate to receive an error message in *that* case, you're really,
really going to love this.
Yes, please. I think the idea behind the two properties was really
simplifying the task for stylesheet developers so they can easily build
up tables. Nobody will ever explicitely write a "false" value for the
two properties into his stylesheet. He will only set a "true" value
he knows that he needs to start (or end) a row (depending on the
Glen would say we should contact the FO WG for a clarification.
Good idea. FWIW: a quick Google on the topic didn't bring me any closer
to clarifying this issue. Examples seem to be very rare...