So then should it be:
org.apache.fop.dom.svg
or
org.apache.fop.svg.dom
or
something else?
-Steve
-Original Message-
From: Arnaud Le Hors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 4:32 PM
To: fop-dev@xml.apache.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SVG goes
COFFMAN Steven wrote:
So then should it be:
org.apache.fop.dom.svg
or
org.apache.fop.svg.dom
or
something else?
I would say the first one.
--
Arnaud Le Hors - IBM Cupertino, XML Technology Group
Arnold, Curt wrote:
Basically, that suggested to me that if you were able to hint that
at a certain place in the document, a flyweight implementation of Node
were used (child content was held as a single string, flyweight
implementations
of Node, Attribute were mapped onto the string on
From: Keiron Liddle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 7:08 AM
To: fop-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: SVG
I've had a look at the SVG dom classes.
I will be moving all the svg code into this model once I figure out a few
things. This means some major restructuring.
Steven Coffman wrote:
If SVG is going to be DOM based, rather than treated as a special case form
of XSL:FO, then that immediately says, Xerces to me. Should an
implementation of the W3C's SVG DOM be part of Xerces? Does that allow us to
do anything cool? Should it continue to be part of FOP? If
This was a FOP message, but you're the DOM experts, so I'd like to get your
input.
The end result we want is that Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) be translated
to PDF. Kieron's been treating SVG sort of as a special case of XSL:FO,
which is why it's been [uncommitted, but still] in FOP.
If
