W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xsl-fo@w3.org > July 2002

RE: block width="2in"

From: Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom@accesswave.ca>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 21:39:35 -0300
To: <www-xsl-fo@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NIECINNOJOOPPAIFLMIGEELKCKAA.asandstrom@accesswave.ca>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-xsl-fo-request@w3.org [mailto:www-xsl-fo-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Dave Pawson
> Sent: July 9, 2002 11:50 PM
> To: www-xsl-fo@w3.org
> Subject: fo:block width="2in"
> Is it valid xsl-fo please?
> rec says applies to: all elements but non-replaced inline
> elements, table-rows, and row groups
> fop list recently came up with
> width is kind of shortcut for inline-progression-dimension and
> CSS definition
> The appendix C says its basic.
> I can't see any issue with it?
> xep supports it, AH not (yet?)

I just finished implementing the code for 5.3.3 in my and Eric Bischoff's
xslfoproc formatter
(http://www.bureau-cornavin.com/opensource/xsl-fo/index.html), so this is
fresh in my mind. I tend to treat the CSS "Applies to" field with a grain of
salt; as Ken points out the XSL-specific comments may supersede, and the
final authority as to what is applicable to a given FO is the _FO_

In the case of 'block' none of the height/width/*-progression-dimension
properties apply (Section 6.5.2). If they did then we'd see them explicitly
mentioned, as we do for 'block-container' (Section 6.5.3). If we can't count
on at least this much in the spec then we may as well all pack up and go

I wouldn't consider height & width properties (all 6 of them) as shortcuts;
they are the absolute counterparts to the relative '*-progression-dimension'

Just my opinion.

Arved Sandstrom
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 20:39:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:26 UTC