Such a move would have to be well-documented because some people could (or probably will anyway) be upset when they upgrade and RTF just stops working until they add fop-sandbox.jar. I'm sure there are a lot of people perfectly happy with what the RTF handler produces.
I'm not against moving it to the sandbox but I think I'd prefer just making the status of the various output formats much more prominent. After all, besides being practically the only RTF maintainer, I'm probably the only active committer who knows enough about PCL. PCL is also just minimally built to get decent results. With obligations elsewhere during the last 14 months I had to reduce in certain areas so RTF got neglected if not ignored. Even though I don't like RTF at all and would prefer ODF support, I think it would be a shame to let RTF output drop without any alternative. My long-awaited holidays start tomorrow (still haven't finished everything I wanted) but I plan to re-establish RTF support starting in October when I'm back working on FOP 100%. Jeremias Maerki On 31.07.2007 16:07:43 Chris Bowditch wrote: > Manuel Mall wrote: > > <snip/> > > >> > >>Not completely, of course, but basically we wouldn’t advertise it, > >>and say that RTF support is provided as is, is no longer maintained, > >>and that users are on their own when using it. That way they would at > >>least be aware of the risks of going that route. > >> > > > > What about moving RTF to the sandbox? That should signal its > > incomplete / still in draft / not officially supported status. > > I agree with Manuel. I dont think we should just drop it because I think > there are a lot of people using it. Well thats the impression I get from > all the questions that are asked about it. Moving it to the sandbox is a > clear way of saying its unfinished and not supported. > > Chris >
