W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xsl-fo@w3.org > February 2001

Re: PDF bookmarks (was: Re: extensions to FO)

From: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@computing-services.oxford.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 17:11:08 +0000
Message-ID: <14972.15276.855377.991878@spqr2.oucs.ox.ac.uk>
To: grig@renderx.com
Cc: www-xsl-fo@w3.org
Nikolai Grigoriev writes:
 > My proposal is to use fo:markers  with a special role - like this:
 > 
 > <fo:marker role="bookmark">1 Introduction</fo:marker>
 > 
 > The hierarchy of bookmarks will be established by the hierarchy of
 > parent objects of the respective markers - in exactly the same way
 > as it occurs for "normal" markers. 

My real objection is that there *is* no hierarchy. Surely my FO looks like this

   block
      1 Introduction
   /block
   block
      1.1 We go to sea
   /block

  so there *is* no implicit nesting which I can utilize? a subsection looks
  the same as a section, apart from data content of "1" or "1.1".

but possibly i am simply mad. if so, I still have 3 objections

 a) I don't like the idea of misusing a FO element, when the spec isnt even
    finished. 
 b) I don't like the idea of restricting the bookmark facility to 
    just conventional TOCs. Suppose I wanted to make a set of bookmarks
    of all my tables, with some subentries inside them? lets not
    cripple ourselves before we start!
 c) I don't like the idea of trusting nesting hierarchy, for the same
    reason as b). ie I want complete freedom. Suppose for some
    reason I want to specify all my bookmarks at the start or end?

    also, if I have 
       block
        marker1
        block
          block
            marker2

   then is marker2 one or two levels deeper than marker1?

as Nikolai says:


 > This is restrictive with respect
 > to what can be expressed by bookmarks in PDF (there, bookmark
 > sequence and hierarchy can be completely unrelated to the
 > arrangement of the document locations pointed to by the
 > bookmarks). My opinion is that this is not very critical 
there I disagree, because

 > - all "normal" bookmark usages are like table-of-contents to outline the
I don't like predicting "normal"

 > <fo:block>
 >   <fo:marker marker-class-name="chapter"
 >       role="bookmark">1 Introduction</fo:marker>
 >   <fo:block font-weight="bold">1 Introduction</fo:block>
 > ...
 > </fo:block>
 > 
 > Another advantage: an application that does not support bookmarking will
 > need no extra effort to ignore it - fo:markers are invisible :-).

but I agree, these are attractive.

I suppose we could agree that we will all support the "role" attribute
of fo:marker, but that should not be an end to it. lets also agree on
a fuller spec for an extension which does the complete job.

but can someone show me some FO from which i can realiably work out hierarchy?

sebastian
Received on Sunday, 4 February 2001 08:37:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 October 2007 16:06:08 GMT