W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xsl-fo@w3.org > December 2010

Re: page-sequence-wrapper

From: Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 17:54:02 +0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTin2dE+c_nuoKYBdhYereAG+0-2TXfi9wX=b2UqC@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-xsl-fo@w3.org
Thanks Paul. Looks like I'm with you on indexing so far.


On 2 December 2010 17:37, Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 17:06 +0000, Dave Pawson wrote:
>> 6.4.6 fo:page-sequence-wrapper
>
> [...]
>
> Where are you looking? XSL-FO 1.1 I'm guessing...

Yes, http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/

>
>
>> We have to guess what properties are allowed on the fo I think.
>>
>> Is it any property that might belong on a page-sequence child of
>> page-sequence-wrapper?
>
> I think that's a reasonable assumption.

with Pauls caveat, the reader now has to trawl the rec for inheritable
properties from that list. OK.


>
> If the spec should be clarified, please feel free to open a bugzilla
> issue for it.

I don't know enough yet to ask a sensible question LIam.
I will do... when I do (if you see what I mean)


>
>>   Note also there would appear to be no description of how the
>> index-class/index-key properties
>> are used on this fo?
>
> See 6.10.1 for index-key and index-class, but, you've probably already
> read that, so I'm not sure I understand your question here...

The element is a wrapper, if we're talking indexing and index classes
surely that relates to content and not to a wrapper for a flow for a .... etc?
I.e. those two attributes don't really belong this high up the tree?




>
>> [In which case why are index-class and index-key pulled out as special?]
>
> Because someone on the Working Group thought it would be helpful ;-)
> For all I know I asked for it myself, I don't remember...
>
> It looks like they may have been wrong - it might have been clearer if
> the non-normative note were not there.

I'm looking for a usage on this element. The only one
available is the more general one which (rightly) makes
more sense on a real content wrapper (inline or block at most).

Paul, your comment about 'there is no dtd'. Agreed.
but for someone writing fo in preparation for writing XSLT,
it sure does make sense! Even if not normative.

At worst Schematron, which is a very big try / verify loop.

I am working with the RenderX schema but I don't think that's
been updated for 1.1 as yet.



regards


-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
Received on Thursday, 2 December 2010 17:54:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 2 December 2010 17:54:30 GMT