Re: replace extension bookmarks with XSL 1.1 ones?

[Glen Mazza]

  ;-)

--- Chris Bowditch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Glen Mazza wrote:
> 
> > They're coming very close (I suspect in a few
> weeks at
> > the latest) to having a "Last Call" version--would
> it
> > be acceptable for you at that stage?  I don't mind
> > waiting a little longer.
> 
> Second edition of working Draft was released today
> :-)
> 
> 
> 
> Chris
> 

Re: replace extension bookmarks with XSL 1.1 ones?

[Chris Bowditch]

Glen Mazza wrote:
They're coming very close (I suspect in a few weeks at
the latest) to having a "Last Call" version--would it
be acceptable for you at that stage?  I don't mind
waiting a little longer.
Second edition of working Draft was released today :-)

Chris

RE: replace extension bookmarks with XSL 1.1 ones?

[Andreas L. Delmelle]

> -Original Message-
> From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --- "Andreas L. Delmelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>

Hi Glen,

> > the XSL 1.1 WD, but since that's all it is ATM, a
> > 'Working Draft', changing
> > their namespace might be a bit premature (?[*]),
>
> They're coming very close (I suspect in a few weeks at
> the latest) to having a "Last Call" version--would it
> be acceptable for you at that stage?

I guess so (just wasn't sure how close it was).

No further objections from me. Of course, now we should start to think about
implementing a lot of other XSL 1.1 goodies :-)


Greetz,

Andreas

RE: replace extension bookmarks with XSL 1.1 ones?

[Glen Mazza]

--- "Andreas L. Delmelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> the XSL 1.1 WD, but since that's all it is ATM, a
> 'Working Draft', changing
> their namespace might be a bit premature (?[*]),

They're coming very close (I suspect in a few weeks at
the latest) to having a "Last Call" version--would it
be acceptable for you at that stage?  I don't mind
waiting a little longer.


> unless we have some
> certainty WRT when it's going to be approved and
> will get the status of
> 'Recommendation'.
> 

I'm more comfortable with Last Call.  Last Call ->
Recommendation I suspect incurs lots of bureaucratic
delays while having few changes to the spec itself.  

At any rate, we can always drop and add XSL-NS FO
elements and properties as the spec itself is
modified.  Indeed, it's frequently the implementation
of these FO's that allows for feedback that causes
changes in the spec to occur.


> Changing the names: +1
> ... the namespace: -1
> 
> Greetz,
> 
> Andreas
> 
> [*] Surely someone here will remember MS's 'blunder'
> when they adopted an
> XSL-WD as a 'standard' too quickly...
> 

Well we can also lose in the other direction.  The
main question appears to be what's the percentage
chance of the 1.1 bookmark XSL FO's being dropped at
this stage?  If < 10-20%, perhaps best to switch now
and accept a 10-20% chance of needing to change our
code later, rather than keep it in the fox: NS and
have an 80-90% chance of needing to change it later to
the fo: NS.  

Thanks,
Glen

RE: replace extension bookmarks with XSL 1.1 ones?

[Andreas L. Delmelle]

> -Original Message-
> From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Hi Glen,

Very much in favor of changing the extension elements' names to conform with
the XSL 1.1 WD, but since that's all it is ATM, a 'Working Draft', changing
their namespace might be a bit premature (?[*]), unless we have some
certainty WRT when it's going to be approved and will get the status of
'Recommendation'.

Changing the names: +1
... the namespace: -1

Greetz,

Andreas

[*] Surely someone here will remember MS's 'blunder' when they adopted an
XSL-WD as a 'standard' too quickly...

Re: replace extension bookmarks with XSL 1.1 ones?

[The Web Maestro]

sounds good to me... +1
On Dec 12, 2004, at 8:01 AM, Glen Mazza wrote:
Team,
Silly confirmation question here -- is the 1.1 XSL
Spec's fo:bookmark-tree, fo:bookmark, and
fo:bookmark-title [1] basically the same thing as our
fox:bookmarks, fox:outline, and fox:title,
respectively?   (i.e., they're for off-document PDF
bookmarks?)  Its mandated location [2] in the FO is
the same place where our fox: equivalents are.  (The
only issue giving me pause is that fo:bookmark
apparently generates inline areas according to the
spec [3], i.e., it appears to be something that is
*on* the document.)
Anyway, if they're equivalent, I would like to bring
these three 1.1 elements in (I'm guessing a new
pagination.bookmarks package, we can move it around
later) and drop our fox: equivalents.  Backwards
compatibility with 0.20.5 is already broken because of
the addition of fox:bookmarks in 1.0, as well as the
enforced validation scheme, so we can fortunately
focus on the best design here.
There is a differing namespace issue that will need to
be taken care of eventually but I think we can tend to
that afterwards without much hassle.  (We can handle
it now, if anyone has ideas.)  My primary goal for the
moment is to pull out our bookmark extension elements
and put in the official XSL elements (even if 1.1)
instead.
Thoughts?  Objections?
Thanks,
Glen
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl11/#d0e12873
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl11/#fo_root
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl11/#fo_bookmark

Web Maestro Clay
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 
My religion is simple. My religion is kindness.
- HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet