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

Re: extensions to FO

From: Sebastian Rahtz <sebastian.rahtz@computing-services.oxford.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 17:23:14 +0000
Message-ID: <14972.16002.245711.923194@spqr2.oucs.ox.ac.uk>
To: camk@channelpoint.com
Cc: www-xsl-fo@w3.org
Kelly Campbell writes:
 > recommendation. Basically, I was thinking of something along the lines of
 > the following:
 > 
 > <fop:toc label="Introduction">
 >   <fo:block id="sect-intro">
 >    Section 1: Introduction
 >   </fo:block>
 >   <fo:block>
 >     Some text for the section
 >   </fo:block>
 >   <fop:toc label="subsection">
 >     <fo:block>
 >      Section 1.1: subheading
 >     </fo:block>
 >   </fop:toc>
 > </fop:toc>

just a comment: PDF bookmarks are NOT "blocks", so why dress them up as such?
why not separate this out entirely into:

<fop:toc id="sect-intro">
   Section 1: Introduction
   <fop:toc id="subsection"">
     Section 1.1: subheading
  </fop:toc>
</fop:toc>

 > Another use case I can think of off-hand are PDF's structural tags such as
 > heading and paragraph and such which can be tagged in the PDF.  When you're
 > converting a DocBook tagged file into FO, you lose most, if not all, of the
 > semantic information, and have just visual and aural presentation
 > information left.

er, quite, thats a short summary of the whole point of FO!!! indeed, to 
many people, its a description of why FO is a BAD THING.

the "role" attribution can be used anywhere to preserve some
structural info, surely?

sebastian
Received on Sunday, 4 February 2001 08:37:50 GMT

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