Re: Redesign issues

2002-12-12 Thread Keiron Liddle
On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 11:37, Oleg Tkachenko wrote: > Keiron, can you place the link somewhere in the dev docs for memory, please? Sure. Done. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL P

Re: Redesign issues

2002-12-12 Thread Oleg Tkachenko
Keiron Liddle wrote: A very rough start at some tasks for FOP here: http://codeconsult.ch/wiki/index.php/FopTasks I'm new to this wiki stuff, so see what happens. Keiron, can you place the link somewhere in the dev docs for memory, please? -- Oleg Tkachenko eXperanto team Multiconn Technologi

Markers (was: RE: Redesign issues)

2002-12-10 Thread Keiron Liddle
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 17:26, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > Incidentally, I still think that the way markers are described in the spec > is vague and confusing. Perhaps we should hammer this out. Agreed. I still have figured out what it really means. -

RE: Redesign issues

2002-12-10 Thread Arved Sandstrom
Responses below. > -Original Message- > From: Keiron Liddle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: December 10, 2002 5:56 AM > To: FOP > Subject: RE: Redesign issues > > > Hi Arved, > > On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 20:30, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > > The feeling I

RE: Redesign issues

2002-12-10 Thread Keiron Liddle
Hi Arved, On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 20:30, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > The feeling I got from my prototype is that there is not much commonality. > > Markers - there is no logic here that has anything to do with layout, per > se. The content goes into a static-content and hence does not influence page >

RE: Redesign issues

2002-12-09 Thread Rhett Aultman
Response below. -Original Message- From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 3:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Redesign issues >> Keiron Liddle wrote: > These are the issues that you have mentioned before. > It is still esse

Re: Redesign issues

2002-12-09 Thread J.Pietschmann
Keiron Liddle wrote: These are the issues that you have mentioned before. It is still essentially only attacking two methods (and supporting classes). Unfortunately, these are the core methods, essential for understanding the whole approach. If you have a better design, then do it. I put a det

RE: Redesign issues

2002-12-09 Thread Arved Sandstrom
> -Original Message- > From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: December 9, 2002 8:56 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Redesign issues > > > Keiron Liddle wrote: > > > > > > I still believe that it is useful to have the lay

Re: Redesign issues

2002-12-09 Thread Peter B. West
Keiron Liddle wrote: I still believe that it is useful to have the layout managers separate from the fo tree. There are a number of reasons that come to mind. It is possible to independantly change layout managers. Certain fo's aren't directly in the same hierarchy: markers, undefined table colu

RE: Redesign issues

2002-12-09 Thread Keiron Liddle
On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 15:43, Rhett Aultman wrote: > We have a Wiki that seems to have been a good way of quickly throwing up ideas for >style guidelines and voting on them. Why don't we do the same thing here? We could >throw up our ideas, try to sort them into "lofty, long term" stuff and "imm

Re: Redesign issues

2002-12-09 Thread Keiron Liddle
Hi Joerg, These are the issues that you have mentioned before. It is still essentially only attacking two methods (and supporting classes). If you have a better design, then do it. On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 00:16, J.Pietschmann wrote: > deep inheritance hierarchies. There is only so much someone can

RE: Redesign issues

2002-12-09 Thread Keiron Liddle
On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 01:00, Arved Sandstrom wrote: > I actually helped push for this last year - the notion of separate layout > managers. I was strongly influenced by the mess that FOP code had become at > the time, and really thought that layout should be taken out of the FOs > themselves; that

Re: Redesign issues

2002-12-09 Thread Peter B. West
Arved Sandstrom wrote: I actually helped push for this last year - the notion of separate layout managers. I was strongly influenced by the mess that FOP code had become at the time, and really thought that layout should be taken out of the FOs themselves; that the FO's, in a sense, were (or shou

RE: Redesign issues

2002-12-08 Thread Arved Sandstrom
Response below. > -Original Message- > From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: December 7, 2002 7:16 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Redesign issues > [ SNIP ] > Now the biggest issue: the layout managers itself. At the first > glance it i

Re: Redesign issues

2002-12-07 Thread J.Pietschmann
Keiron Liddle wrote: As far as I am concerned it is largely irrelevant whether the particular layout design is 100% correct. There will never be a design which is 100% correct. However, some designs are easier to comprehend than others. The HEAD design has a few stumbling blocks for beginners. L

RE: Redesign issues

2002-12-06 Thread Rhett Aultman
Response below. -Original Message- From: Keiron Liddle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Fri 12/6/2002 6:05 AM To: FOP Cc: Subject: RE: Redesign issues I previously said: >> My personal pr

RE: Redesign issues

2002-12-06 Thread Keiron Liddle
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 15:28, Rhett Aultman wrote: > This is something I'd really like to see hashed out better. We're winding down on >the maintenance brach. I've read a majority of the source in HEAD other than the >renderers (which I don't feel qualified or interested in, anyway), and I under

Re: Redesign issues

2002-12-05 Thread Peter B. West
Keiron Liddle wrote: On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 13:01, Peter B. West wrote: There is an implication in what you are saying that you do have the direction forward for the FO processor "internalised", so to speak, and that a complete FO processor is, as Christian says, just a matter of time. I, and

Re: Redesign issues

2002-12-05 Thread Keiron Liddle
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 13:01, Peter B. West wrote: > There is an implication in what you are saying that you do have the > direction forward for the FO processor "internalised", so to speak, > and > that a complete FO processor is, as Christian says, just a matter of > time. I, and I suspect Arv

RE: Redesign issues

2002-12-05 Thread Rhett Aultman
Responses below. -Original Message- From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 5:27 PM To: fop-dev Subject: Redesign issues >> This is the question that everyone has to answer. Blind faith that that the problem can be solved by simply hurling onsel

Re: Redesign issues

2002-12-05 Thread Peter B. West
Karen Lease wrote: Peter, ... ... I will make a few comments on the "redesign" issue. I agree with Arved that we certainly have some large problems to face. As he points out, the mainstream redesign suffers from not being understood and therefore from a lack of active contributors. ... I