Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I'm considering removing the "character" area tree object and instead
map an fo:character to a normal text area with one word child.
Looks ok: +1
J.Pietschmann
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 10:15:01AM -0800, Clay Leeds wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
> >On Feb 27, 2006, at 16:40, Manuel Mall wrote:
> >>On Monday 27 February 2006 23:37, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> >>>I'm considering removing t
On Feb 27, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
On Feb 27, 2006, at 16:40, Manuel Mall wrote:
On Monday 27 February 2006 23:37, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I'm considering removing the "character" area tree object and
instead
map an fo:character to a normal text area with
On Feb 27, 2006, at 16:40, Manuel Mall wrote:
On Monday 27 February 2006 23:37, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I'm considering removing the "character" area tree object and instead
map an fo:character to a normal text area with one word child.
Does anybody see a problem with removin
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
I'm considering removing the "character" area tree object and instead
map an fo:character to a normal text area with one word child.
[...]
Does anybody see a problem with removing the character area tree object?
No problem, it's a good idea; it
On Monday 27 February 2006 23:37, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> I'm considering removing the "character" area tree object and instead
> map an fo:character to a normal text area with one word child.
> fo:characters are rarely used so this doesn't add much to the memory
&
I'm considering removing the "character" area tree object and instead
map an fo:character to a normal text area with one word child.
fo:characters are rarely used so this doesn't add much to the memory
consumption of the area tree but reduces the complexity (or code
dupl