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

Re: Line breaks

From: Dave Pawson <daveP@dpawson.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 19:59:04 +0000
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010208195621.02bf9d80@127.0.0.1>
To: www-xsl-fo@w3.org

>DC
>
>But now I'm worried:
>
>Norm Walsh's docbook styles write out the following for
>(example) literallayout or programlisting or other "verbatim" elements.
>
>passivetex supports the same interpreting no-wrap as saying that
>automatic line breaking is turned off, and line break characters should
>cause a line break.
>
>But is this interpretation justified by the spec?
>
>Given 
>
>          <fo:block wrap-option='no-wrap'
>                    text-align='start'
>                    linefeed-treatment="preserve"
>
>7.14.13 "wrap option"
>
>Says that no line wrapping will be performed and that long lines are
>treated by whatever the overflow property says,
>
>7.14.7 linefeed-treatment
>
>says that preserve means "no special action" 
>
>
>So what is it that says that &#10; should cause the formatter to make a
>new line? Is the intention that it always does that unless the spec
>explicitly specifies that it should be ignored or treated as space?
>Should that be made explicit or am I just being paranoid?

If you are worried I sure am :-)

Its an 'essential' category.
E.g, the papers for the XSLT-UK conference have great chunks
of 'code' of one form or another.

Its essential that these are laid out as given.
surely this hasn't been overlooked by the WG... I would
hope that at least one of them has embedded code into prose before.
(sorry WG)

Regards daveP
Received on Thursday, 8 February 2001 15:00:45 GMT

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