> Glen Mazza wrote: > FOP's goals should be (1) to be compliant/accurate with the spec
The Area Tree is an implementation specification: either the XSL editors remove it from the specs or they specify it precisely as a portable, device-independent print file format. I ran Chuck Paussa's FO schema thru Castor. Anything goes and is formally valid. > (2) be able to generate the largest numbers of huge files in the smallest amount of time. Is the design optimized for big DocBooks, accounting reports 15'000 uniform pages long, many small business documents? Reminder on renderer requirements: o Data: basic draw objects (current FOP uses nothing else from the area tree). o Physical printers: pages in a sequential data stream o AWT viewer: random access to pages o PDF: finished pages may be shipped to the renderer, accepted page references don't cause page break changes. > To me, multiple layout strategies is > really like saying multiple applications. (After all, > the layout handler and renderers *form* an XSL FO > formatter.) Is there a common agreement on FOP components, processing modes (push/pull), intermediate data storage and the suitable interfaces? An overall design given, plugins and multiple layout strategies can be defined and evaluated. Most likely the findings will be: there is one layout strategy. Playing with spacing and balancing, hyphenation is switched off on demand. Plus some performance tips like: do not use forward page references, auto-sized big tables, text columns ... Hansuli Anderegg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
