Keiron Liddle wrote: > > On 2001.11.30 15:39 Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote: > > At 4:48 PM -0400 11/29/01, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > > This was already a known thing, and Norman Walsh pointed it out also. > > > > There is simply no point in fixing this until the FOP rewrite emerges. > > > > > > That's your choice. However, you should realize that this is going to > > cause a lot of confusion for many users. It basically condemns FOP to > > irrelevance until the rewrite is finished. I'm personally going to have > > pull references to FOP out of the online XML Bible chapters and the next > > edition of XML in a Nutshell, and switch my own toolchains over to > > PassiveTeX. Although this is a small change conceptually, it is one that > > affects pretty much *every* XSL-FO document anyone is ever going to > > write.
[..] > If someone else really thinks there are things that need doing then I > strongly suggest that you get busy and do them. > > Does anyone else have any better suggestions? I would be glad to hear them. I think too we should do a maintenance release (from 'fop-0_20_2-maintain' branch). I volunteer to do the necessary patches, do some testing etc. > Regards, > Keiron. Christian --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
