Re: Modular XSL-FO 2.0 spec?

• From: Jean Kaplansky <jeankap@gmail.com>
• Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:58:49 -0500
• To: Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net>
• Cc: Print and Page Layout Community Group <public-ppl@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <2408945688951862313@unknownmsgid>

I agree. Modularity is working out well for other groups. It's worth
the effort to go modular than to over extend with limited resources.

-Jean

On Mar 6, 2013, at 8:56 AM, Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net> wrote:

> This is an idea that Liam has talked about at various times, but would it
> be useful *not* put things like copy-fitting into the ppl's version of the
> XSL-FO 2.0 WD and to instead make (as much as possible) standalone modules
> for new additions such as copy-fitting?  The ppl's XSL-FO spec would then
> be largely XSL 1.1 (+ errata) and the changes necessary to describe how
> other modules would slot into the larger whole.
>
> It seems to me that doing things in smaller chunks would better fit our
> resources.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Tony.
>

Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2013 14:59:28 UTC