On Monday, December 15, 2003, at 02:50 AM, Hussein Shafie wrote: >> May be to stress the difference to the CSS specification, instead of >> the name "counters" a proprietary name could be used, e.g. "index", >> "numbering" or so. > > You are right but it is a bit too late to change this for current > counter/counters which are already different from the CSS > specification. >
As you need to continue to diverge from the CSS specification to make this editor a better product, have you ever considered just making this your own style language? There is so much to explain as to what is different and it is unknown where CSS is going. Since editors like yours are not in the CSS working group's goals, it is conceivable that they will make some "fatal mistake" that will hurt your product. Another option would be XSL Formatting Objects. You'd have the flexibility you need for generated content and extensibility is built into the specification. The only tricky bit (which is quite possible) is handling the back pointers to the content from the formatting objects. In general, it would be possible to have multiple FO's for the same content. You'd have to decide whether you want to support this. It would seem that your "content view" API would handle this just fine. Just a thought... Alex Milowski FAX: (707) 598-7649 alex at milowski.com "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language considered." Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
