At 09:36 AM 7/17/01 +0100, Alex McLintock wrote:
> --- Struan Judd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If so might I request a small departure from the XSL:FO spec, if it is
>> straight-forward to implement. Please allow keep-together on fo:table-row.
>>
>
>I don't think deviations from the XSL:FO spec are either wise or going to
>be popular.
Can't comment on this particular request, but I'm personally pretty sure
that a number of deviations from the spec _would_, in fact, be quite popular.
FOP is developmental & immature; the last thing we need is to deliberately
add in non-conformities to the ones that are already there. For a
commercial, relatively mature processor like XEP, I think arguments can be
made for some careful deviations from spec, and indeed they (RenderX) have
made some such here and there (borders on regions, for example).
Personally I would argue against doing _anything_ like that right now, until
FOP is feature-complete and production-ready. Then it could be revisited.
Even then I would be normally against it, but not inflexibly so, because the
XSL 1.0 spec just does not cover all the bases, and it doesn't do everything
right. And who knows when XSL 2.0 will appear?
As an aside, we are clearly not talking about extensions. Separate issue. I
think those are fine.
Regards,
Arved Sandstrom
Fairly Senior Software Type
e-plicity (http://www.e-plicity.com)
Wireless * B2B * J2EE * XML --- Halifax, Nova Scotia
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
