Officially supported version of the Recommendation

[Vincent Hennebert <vi...@anyware-tech.com>]

Guys,

It may be worth clarifying which version of XSL-FO we officially
support, now that 1.1 has reached the status of a recommendation. I
guess we can now take it as a reference, since it clears some
uncertainties of the 1.0 version. I've just noticed that I'm myself
still looking at the 1.0 copy whenever I want to check something.

So from now on, if we say "that's what is written in the nth paragraph
of section blah blah", do we all agree that we have the 1.1 version in
mind? Any objection?

Thanks,
Vincent

Re: Officially supported version of the Recommendation

[Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch>]

I agree. Only one problem: Some semantics changed from 1.0 to 1.1
(block-container as an example). I'm not sure if we're already on 1.1
level everywhere.

On 13.02.2007 10:51:05 Chris Bowditch wrote:
> Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> 
> > Guys,
> > 
> > It may be worth clarifying which version of XSL-FO we officially
> > support, now that 1.1 has reached the status of a recommendation. I
> > guess we can now take it as a reference, since it clears some
> > uncertainties of the 1.0 version. I've just noticed that I'm myself
> > still looking at the 1.0 copy whenever I want to check something.
> > 
> > So from now on, if we say "that's what is written in the nth paragraph
> > of section blah blah", do we all agree that we have the 1.1 version in
> > mind? Any objection?
> 
> I agree, we should all be working from the 1.1 version now. As you 
> already mentioned the 1.1 spec clarifies some ambiguous parts of the 1.0 
> spec. Although there still remain some confusing aspects in 1.1 too!
> 
> Chris
> 
> 



Jeremias Maerki

Re: Officially supported version of the Recommendation

[Chris Bowditch <bo...@hotmail.com>]

Vincent Hennebert wrote:

> Guys,
> 
> It may be worth clarifying which version of XSL-FO we officially
> support, now that 1.1 has reached the status of a recommendation. I
> guess we can now take it as a reference, since it clears some
> uncertainties of the 1.0 version. I've just noticed that I'm myself
> still looking at the 1.0 copy whenever I want to check something.
> 
> So from now on, if we say "that's what is written in the nth paragraph
> of section blah blah", do we all agree that we have the 1.1 version in
> mind? Any objection?

I agree, we should all be working from the 1.1 version now. As you 
already mentioned the 1.1 spec clarifies some ambiguous parts of the 1.0 
spec. Although there still remain some confusing aspects in 1.1 too!

Chris