W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xsl-fo@w3.org > August 2003

Re: inherit and reference-orientation

From: john farrow <dotnet@visualprogramming.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 16:43:00 +1200
Message-ID: <000c01c36de8$06db9540$6400a8c0@dev>
To: <www-xsl-fo@w3.org>

My take on this is that if you set the reference-orientation to inherit,
then reference orientation gets the attribute value from the parent
reference area, so you end up with:

   <fo:simple-page-master ... reference-orientation="90">
      <fo:region-body reference-orientation="90" .../>

and the content of the region-body is rotated 180 degrees.

Perhaps to say the reference-orientation is inherited is an
over-simplification of the spec, which says inherit : yes but refers to the
notes below (in the spec) which talk about how the directions
(block-progression-direction etc) are derived for contained areas.  What is
inherited is the fact that block-progression-direction is in a certain
direction, not the actual value of the attribute.


John Farrow
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>
To: <www-xsl-fo@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: inherit and reference-orientation

> At 2003-08-28 22:32 +1000, Craig Brown wrote:
> >Just a quick question on how inherit works with reference-orientation.
> >
> >According to the spec, reference-orientation is inherited.
> >
> >Does this mean that if I set reference-orientation to "inherit" it
> >is the same as not setting it at all?
> This is the behaviour exhibited by Antenna House for your example below.
> >I created a file including:
> >
> >     <fo:simple-page-master ... reference-orientation="90">
> >       <fo:region-body reference-orientation="inherit" .../>
> >     </fo:simple-page-master>
> >
> >renderx rendered this with the final orientation of the
> >region body as 180 degrees (upside down),
> Hmmmmmm .... perhaps because inheritance happens during the act of
> refinement, the property value is being inherited and applied a second
> because it is explicit.
> >Does anyone know what the exact behaviour should be?
> I'm not positive which is correct, but I would lean towards your intuition

> that "inherit" is the same as absent.  Traits are derived during
> refinement, not properties, so it would make sense to me that "inherit" is
> the same as absent.
> I hope this helps, though I realize it isn't definitive.  Perhaps someone
> on the XSL WG can comment.
> ..................... Ken
> --
> Next public European delivery:  3-day XSLT/2-day XSL-FO 2003-09-22
> Instructor-led on-site corporate, government & user group training
> for XSLT and XSL-FO world-wide:  please contact us for the details
> G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
> Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/f/
> Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
> ISBN 0-13-065196-6                       Definitive XSLT and XPath
> ISBN 0-13-140374-5                               Definitive XSL-FO
> ISBN 1-894049-08-X   Practical Transformation Using XSLT and XPath
> ISBN 1-894049-11-X               Practical Formatting Using XSL-FO
> Member of the XML Guild of Practitioners:     http://XMLGuild.info
> Male Breast Cancer Awareness  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/f/bc
Received on Friday, 29 August 2003 00:45:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:28 UTC