Jeremias Maerki wrote: > On 10.02.2009 13:22:01 Vincent Hennebert wrote: >> Hi Jeremias, >> >> A few suggestions: >> <snip/> >>> <section id="introduction"> >>> <title>Introduction</title> >>> <p> >>> - The intermediate format (IF) is a proprietary XML format that >>> represents the area tree >>> - generated by the layout engine. The area tree is conceptually >>> defined in the >>> + Apache FOP now provides two different so-called intermediate >>> formats. The first one >>> + (let's call it the area tree XML format) is basically a 1:1 XML >>> representation of the FOP's >>> + area tree generated by the layout engine. The area tree is >>> conceptually defined in the >>> <a >>> href="http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xsl-20011015/slice1.html#section-N742-Formatting";>XSL-FO >>> specification in chapter 1.1.2</a>. >>> - The IF can be generated through the area tree XML Renderer (the >>> XMLRenderer). >> Renaming this class into AreaTreeRenderer or AreaTreeXMLRenderer will >> probably allow to avoid confusion in the future. > > -1 to that. Will break backwards-compatibility for those who are using > this renderer directly. It would break at least two pieces of software I > have.
Breaking backwards-compatibility because of an important change in an API is a thing, simply have a class renamed is a non-issue if you ask me. It’s just a small search/replace and recompilation. To make things a little bit smoother though, XMLRenderer could be made deprecated with a suggestion to switch to AreaTree[XML]Renderer. > If you you generate SAX events > (AbstractXMLRenderer.setContentHandler()), working with MIME types isn't > enough. I’m missing the point here? > Besides, I don't think that would really improve the whole thing > much. After all, with the new IF, we're not primarily talking about > renderers but something else (IFDocumentHandler/IFPainter). It’s never too obvious. After all, the two sections in the documentation are very similar. Vincent
