- From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 15:04:41 +0000
- To: xsl-fo Community Group <public-ppl@w3.org>
On 6 March 2013 14:58, Jean Kaplansky <jeankap@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Ditto.... my only concern is syntactic integration? How to specify where element x is valid for xsl-fo? I.e. how a module integrates? [Tony, please don't say anywhere :-) regards > > -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. >> > -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. Docbook FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2013 15:05:14 UTC