On Aug 10, 2007, at 18:33, b.ohnsorg wrote:
Nicol Bolas wrote:
It wouldn't make more sense if I'd try to say it in other words.
Was my fault to try to express it in a language different from my
mother tongue. (And it would be even harder for me to explain it
even as native speaker to transport the idea of accepting things
that don't make sense in any logical way but get payed at least.)
... I'm sorry. That didn't make sense.
Could you please repeat it, using something more closely
English? I don't actually understand your point or even what your
are trying to say.
So please drop RTF-export, 'cause it doesn't make sense to
transform anything expressable by XSL-FO to something that 70% of
«business people» use every day. And that's why everybody should
get used to talk, write and understand XSL-FO. BTW, did you
recognize that not even FOP is fully XSL-FO capable and some of the
ideas behind XSL-FO can't be transformed with it to...Post Script?
So please also drop XSL-FO-parsing-support from FOP.
:-) Now there's a point!
I agree. RTF does have its limitations, so does TXT. Still, there is
a TXT renderer incorporated in FOP. Should we drop it entirely,
because we ourselves don't have a need for it? Interesting to see so
many references to the sacred "XSL-FO Recommendation", but never a
single word about the fact that the Recommendation places *no
constraint whatsoever* on the *user agents*, only the *formatter*
If a certain output format happens to offer only very limited
features, should that format be dropped?
Note: XSL-FO contains /aural/ properties as well, to control audible
output. Those indeed make little sense when rendering to PostScript.
Bottom-line for me: I would not drop RTF-support. Too many people
have already invested their time in JFOR and its integration into FOP
to let that happen. Especially not when the original motivation seems
to be, yet again, an almost obsessive need to save on some
RTF is a reality. I'd rather receive a question every once in a while
and see people offering useful patches to improve its quality, than
move it to the sandbox and get washed away by a lot of "What happened
to RTF???" posts...
To sum it up: my sentences don't try to say anything, that's why
I'll do something different than wasting energy by sending mails to
that list. I'm not pissed nor disappointed but I'm not eager enough
to teach philosophy to everybody and start with the meaning of life
to explain my point of view 'bout FOP and RTF-support. If it still
doesn't make sense to you: I ought to start drinking before stop
Oh, I think you make perfect sense: there are boundaries to all
logical arguments. Points beyond which there simply is no point