Glen Mazza wrote: > --- Victor Mote <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Also, if possible, please let me know what you > > decide. I am evaluating > > in-progress projects right now to determine which > > ones I should finish and > > which ones I should abandon as I exit the project. > > You've mentioned before, I believe, there was some > things you wished to do to improve the fonts. That > may be good--because most of us have not researched > them.
The font work has to get thrown away. It is useless without configuration, and there is no way I'm going to try to figure out what the team wants on that issue. And actually it is pretty useless without a working layout system. Jeremias knows at least as much about fonts as I do, and can probably make faster progress with me inactive. > > If LayoutStrategy > > survives reasonably intact, I am much inclined to > > try to complete the port > > of the pioneer LS. > > I'd rather you not. I don't want to have to maintain > the 0.20.x layout strategy in addition to the 1.0 > strategy in 1.0. The committers and contributors > (Simon and Chris, in particular) are happy working on > the improving 1.0 layout and wish to remain with it. > > Recent patches (hyphenation, borders) to 1.0 LS have > made 0.20.x even more behind. Also, the 1.0 Area Tree > and Renderers are incompatible with 0.20.x LS, I don't > want their architectures changed in order to > accomodate it. > > Those who wish to use the 0.20.x layout strategy can > continue to run 0.20.x. > > Let the decision to bring in that LS be with the ones > who will have to maintain it. As for me, getting one > LS right is more than enough work. For the sake of brevity and peace, I will ignore the factual and analytical errors here, and simply say "Thanks! That certainly makes my life easier." It makes me realize again that maybe I was the one pulling against the flow. My apologies to all, especially Peter. Perhaps, in light of this, it may be worthwhile to abandon LayoutStrategy entirely. That would solve Jeremias's problem that started this thread. That actually leaves only one piece of unfinished business on my part -- the static field lastFOTextProcessed in fo.FOText. This is used for text-transform. It has been my intention to make that an instance variable in PageSequence. However, there are some design-related issues that need to be resolved before that should be done, and I intend to stay out of that. So I mention it only to make sure that you know that I know that it shouldn't be as it is, but that I don't see a ready solution. If multi-threading is more important than text-transform, and you can't get the field converted to an instance variable, just comment out the text-transform code. Best wishes to all. Victor Mote
