In the jfor project (XSL-FO to RTF converter) we'd like to define extensions to XSL-FO for RTF-specific constructs (RTF styles in this case). Could someone from the FOP team check that the proposal below is ok with FOP? Ideally, our jfor: extensions should be completely ignored by FOP, while our output stays as much FOP-like as possible when jfor: extensions are not used. jfor stylesheets extension proposal (example/excerpts): <fo:root xmlns:fo="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format"; xmlns:jfor="http://www.jfor.org/xmlns/2001/stylesheet"; > <!-- this generates an RTF stylesheet --> <jfor:stylesheet> <jfor:style name="sourceCode" font-size="10pt" font-family="Courier"/> <!-- more RTF styles here --> </jfor:stylesheet> <fo:flow> <fo:block jfor-class="sourceCode"> in RTF, this block will have the sourceCode style. </fo:block> </fo:flow> Shouldn't the jfor-class attribute also be made part of the jfor namespace? like <fo:block jfor:jfor-class="sourceCode"> Thanks for having a look at this! -- -- Bertrand Delacrétaz, www.codeconsult.ch -- web technologies consultant - OO, Java, XML, C++ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
