W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xsl-fo@w3.org > May 2011

Re: block-progression-dimension clarification (sorry for long post)

From: G. Ken Holman <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 15:33:41 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: www-xsl-fo@w3.org
At 2011-05-24 19:46 +0200, Giuseppe Briotti wrote:
>Thanks Ken for your response. This is the core problem:
> > > 2. What I'm missing?
> >
> > There is no vertical justification in XSL-FO 1.1, this you cannot stretch
> > vertical content to be anything at all ... it is what it is.
>So probably the best (or the less worst :-D ) approach can be the following:
>1. evaluate the length of the raw text to be put in the cell.
>2. because the font is always the same, with some tests it is possible
>to create a simple (and not perfect) rule: number of chars -> stimated
>cell height
>3. adjust the stimated celle height accordingly to the required height
>of the whole table
>I will try it.

Seems sound to me ... as long as you are willing to accept errors in 
calculations.  Remember that hyphenation may mess with your calculations.

>BTW I run your FO on FOP 0.95 and I noticed some difference.

I cannot comment on FOP.  I trust the Antenna House interpretation of 
the specifications in all areas.  If I need the flexibility offered 
by the differing values of the three components, it would not help me 
to have all three components always set to the same value as it 
appears from the PDF you attached that FOP is doing.

I use either Antenna House or RenderX or Ibex in the classroom when I 
teach XSL-FO.

. . . . . . . . . . . Ken

Contact us for world-wide XML consulting & instructor-led training
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/f/
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
Received on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 19:42:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:34 UTC