Clay Leeds wrote:
snip/
Just to be sure, are these amongst the changes you're looking for:
Hi Clay, yes these are the changes I was looking for. If you could apply the
changes manually I would be most grateful. Thanks,
Chris
Justified Text
High
This has been completed, thanks largely to
Victor Mote wrote:
J.Pietschmann wrote:
Well, the real stakeholders (aka users) are probably more
interested in working footnotes, or multi-column layout.
I don't understand. More interested in working footnotes or multi-column
layout than what? Is removing AddLMVisitor an advancement in
Well, the number of patches and enhancements made to
layout/rendering has only been about 2-3 per month in
the 12 months that we've had AddLMVisitor. FOP won't
finish at that rate, and that *will* affect the users.
In the 24 months preceding that change (i.e., the
original design I'm
I would rather remain silent in this acrimonious debate, but I suppose
that would not help.
I am in favour of a modular view of FOP:
- input specification
- layout
- rendering
I am in favour of reusability of the components. It would be good if
the layout engine could be applied to different
On Aug 2, 2004, at 1:48 AM, Chris Bowditch wrote:
Clay Leeds wrote:
snip/
Just to be sure, are these amongst the changes you're looking for:
Hi Clay, yes these are the changes I was looking for. If you could
apply the changes manually I would be most grateful. Thanks,
Chris
Done. Keep in mind, I
Victor Mote wrote:
I don't understand. More interested in working footnotes or multi-column
layout than what? Is removing AddLMVisitor an advancement in getting
footnotes or multi-column layout working better? Are you reminding us of
your neutrality on modularity? Or are you saying that this kind
