Peter B. West wrote: > Bertrand is probably in the best position to comment wrt RTF. Is anyone
> familiar with MIF. Does it simply define page structures and flows? I'm roughly familiar with MIF - did some rough HTML to MIF conversion years ago. Basically MIF is structured text that is annotated with stylenames, which needn't even by defined in the MIF (but can, if I remember correctly). As for the general discussion on renderer types: IMO, it's a mistake to mangle "renderers" that produce formatted page-level output like PDF or PostScript with "renderers" that produce flow output in other formatting languages, like HTML, RTF or MIF. The latter is rather a conversion step, and you would need not the area tree but rather the FO element tree to do a good conversion. Fundamentally, I think these two different kinds of "renderer tasks" just have two things in common: a parser and an FO element tree, and that's it. So my suggestion would be to implement only formatted output in FOP and refactor the other outputs into a separate tool. If you need a clear differentiation between the renderer types, you might take this one: do I need to know the size of a glyph in a certain font/size to produce the output? If yes, the appropriate renderer goes into FOP, if not, it goes into a separate tool. Just my 2 cents, of course. -- Cappelino Informationstechnologie GmbH Arnd Beißner --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
