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

RE: 1.1 xml rec

From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 09:38:04 -0500
Message-ID: <9B2DE9094C827E44988F5ADAA6A2C5DA01953161@HQ-MAIL9.ptcnet.ptc.com>
To: <www-xsl-fo@w3.org>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-xsl-fo-request@w3.org [mailto:www-xsl-fo-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Dave Pawson
> Sent: Sunday, 2010 December 05 10:04
> To: www-xsl-fo@w3.org
> Subject: 1.1 xml rec
> 
> Playing around with it, except for one item, I have a first cut syntax
> tree,
> each element and all its properties.
> 
> Re the parameter entities.
> 6.2 defines them textually, but there is no xml definition of them?
> 
> That would be a nice addition for automated processing.
> Either as XML for an inclusion or as xml entities.
> 
> 
> I commented to Tony, in answer to his 'every property on every element'
> response.

Tony was correct (and he was agreeing with me who said the same thing).

> 
> Two uses for a  schema.
> 
> 1. When writing an fo tree I only need what is reasonable/implemented.

Given inheritance, it is reasonable to have any property on any 
(non-empty) element.

I know of no XSL FO implementation that does not do inheritance properly, 
and most (if not all) support the 'from-nearest-specified-value()' function.
Therefore, they all implement having any property on any element.

paul


> 2. When decorating such a tree for inheritance I can expand that schema
> to include any properties I want inherited.
> 
> My current focus is on the former use.


Received on Monday, 6 December 2010 14:38:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 December 2010 14:38:45 GMT