--- Simon Pepping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [Jeremias]
> > In the end it will probably have to result in > something similar as EXSLT > > where for widely accepted features a common syntax > is defined. BTW, if I > > remember correctly.....ah yes: > http://exslfo.sourceforge.net/ > Oh I didn't know about that site, thanks Jeremias. This site is somewhat out of date though, because the 1.1 spec does have a lot of the indexing FO's, revision marks, etc., that were previously processor-specific. However, some extensions such as PDF bookmarks and PS paper trays, because they are renderer-specific, will probably never be in the W3C spec. So the EXSLFO site could be useful for these types of extensions--something that all three AH, RX, and FOP can support. [Simon] > We might also implement rx:meta-info instead of > forcing users to > produce fox:meta-info or rx:meta-info depending on > their intended FO > processor. > Yes, that's the main drawback of extensions. I wouldn't want us to be tied to a particular commercial product though--there is also AntennaHouse, and I don't think we would want to be implementing *both* AH and RX. The EXSLFO approach is probably cleaner. Also, I think we may be able to do better than what RenderX or AntennaHouse has. For example, we could separate metadata into render-specific types: <fo:declarations> <fox:metadata> <fox:pdf-metadata/> <fox:ps-metadata/> </fox:metadata> </fo:declarations> and add elements over time as we see fit. Glen
