xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arved Sandstrom <Arved...@chebucto.ns.ca>
Subject Future Direction of Parser/XSLT processor support
Date Sat, 08 Jul 2000 15:40:16 GMT
This is important enough that I want to put it on the table.

While writing the new pagination stuff, which is now languishing because of
this problem, I ended up going over to SAX2. This was initially caused by, I
recall, some implementation compatibility issues, but nevertheless, I have a
Driver and FOTreeBuilder which are now SAX2 and not SAX1.

I hadn't been thinking about the other *CommandLine classes, and only an Ant
"clean" forced the build process to pick them up. As a result of considering
XTCommandLine in particular, I pose the following questions:

(1) XT is tied into SAX1, unfortunately. Should we continue to support it? I
personally think not.

(2) If so, should SAX1 support (XP, XT, basically)  in FOP be deprecated just
as it already is in Xerces?

(3) _And_ if we continue to support SAX1, shouild we affect the main FOP track?
SAX1 and SAX2 are incompatible. Supporting both means different Driver classes,
different FOTreeBuilder classes, etc.  I suggest retaining SAX1 versions of
both that are explicitly referenced by XTCommandLine - the rest of FOP can
assume that SAX2 is the way to go. I looked at factories and adapters, but
quite frankly it was not worth it.

I am putting this out to the forum because for me the coding is easy, but I
don't know what kind of importance XT still has out there in userland.

The other obvious question is, should we move over to SAX2? This is pretty
simple, I think. FOP is part of Apache XML, and SAX1 within the context of
Apache XML is deprecated.

Comments and thoughts appreciated.

Arved

Mime
View raw message