W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xsl-fo@w3.org > July 2007

Re: Could someone please clarify the spec for alignment-adjust

From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 08:54:58 +0100
Message-ID: <711a73df0707070054i7bcf5713v324b40473a8754ea@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Max Berger" <max@berger.name>
Cc: www-xsl-fo@w3.org

On 07/07/07, Max Berger <max@berger.name> wrote:
> Reason for the cross-post was that I first thought this was a bug in
> FOP, and then realized this is a bug in the spec.

If we reply-all, then we'll get a bounce from the other list,
that's why it doesn't make sense.

> However, the "graphic" I want to align in this case is a mathematical
> formula, which does have an "internal textual structure".

Unsure, but I guess the right question to ask is, does your formatter
understand that 'internal text structure'.
I.e. is it the font table information that your formatter understands,
and from which it obtains the baseline?

> to the note in <length> in 7.14.3 I am supposed to use alignment-
> adjust, so I tried doing so and ran into this problem.  One advantage
> of using alignment-adjust is that I can specify the baseline in terms
> of percent of the inline-object instead of the surrounding element,
> which was suggested by another developer [1]

Sounds good, shift this graphic up x%

> For simplicity. Assume a "graphic" containing text: It does have the
> baseline somewhere in there. If I would like to specify where the
> real baseline is, i would find it natural to specify a percent value
> between 0 and 100 (or a length between 0 and the height of the
> object) rather than a negative value.

"somewhere in there" isn't enough Max, IMHO.
If it's a graphic, treat it as a block.
If its a font entry it should be treated as a character?
  I don't think you can assume 'somewhere in there' is enough?
I'm on thin ground here so wait for a more informed opinion.

> So is it safe to assume that 7.31.22 is incorrect, and it should say:
> <percentage>[...]
> alignment-adjust="-<percentage>" (in the case of bottom-to-top)
> and
> <length>
> alignment-adjust="-<length>" (in the case of bottom-to-top)
> ?

I don't find any confusion in that, could you be more explicit please?
As in all I18N, the WG have avoided being explicit in Western assumptions
(rightly so I guess), hence the lack of reference?

> And if so, what what would I need to do to get this on the list of
> errata?

:-) Wait for one of the WG to confirm your assumption is right.
then mail to the WG list, or the W3C contact.


Dave Pawson
Received on Saturday, 7 July 2007 07:55:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:31 UTC