sounds good to me... +1
On Dec 12, 2004, at 8:01 AM, Glen Mazza wrote:
Team,
Silly confirmation question here -- is the 1.1 XSL Spec's fo:bookmark-tree, fo:bookmark, and fo:bookmark-title [1] basically the same thing as our fox:bookmarks, fox:outline, and fox:title, respectively? (i.e., they're for off-document PDF bookmarks?) Its mandated location [2] in the FO is the same place where our fox: equivalents are. (The only issue giving me pause is that fo:bookmark apparently generates inline areas according to the spec [3], i.e., it appears to be something that is *on* the document.)
Anyway, if they're equivalent, I would like to bring these three 1.1 elements in (I'm guessing a new pagination.bookmarks package, we can move it around later) and drop our fox: equivalents. Backwards compatibility with 0.20.5 is already broken because of the addition of fox:bookmarks in 1.0, as well as the enforced validation scheme, so we can fortunately focus on the best design here.
There is a differing namespace issue that will need to be taken care of eventually but I think we can tend to that afterwards without much hassle. (We can handle it now, if anyone has ideas.) My primary goal for the moment is to pull out our bookmark extension elements and put in the official XSL elements (even if 1.1) instead.
Thoughts? Objections?
Thanks, Glen
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl11/#d0e12873 [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl11/#fo_root [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl11/#fo_bookmark
Web Maestro Clay -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - <http://homepage.mac.com/webmaestro/> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness. - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
