Interaction of shorthand and corresponding properties

Dear editors,

Could you one of you please comment on the following cases assuming the
block progression direction is top to bottom :
 
A <fo:block padding="3pt" padding-top="4pt">....

According to 5.2 and 5.3.1, I see the following property values being
set for padding-top and padding-before.

padding-before=0pt, padding-top=0pt (initial values)
padding-top=3pt (from the shorthand)
padding-top=4pt (set explicitly)
padding-before=4pt (set from the corresponding padding-top property)

Now supposing we have this:
B <fo:block padding="3pt" padding-before="4pt">....

This seems to imply the following values being set

padding-before=0pt, padding-top=0pt (initial values)
padding-top=3pt (from the shorthand)
padding-before=3pt (set from the corresponding padding-top property, so
the explicit setting of 4pt is ignored!)

What I (as a user) expect to happen is this:
padding-before=4pt (set explicitly)
padding-top=4pt (set from the corresponding padding-before property ???)


In 5.3.1, the CR says:
"If the corresponding absolute variant of the property is specified on
the formatting object, its computed value is used to set the computed
value of the
corresponding relative property. If the corresponding absolute property
is not
explicitly specified, then the computed value of the absolute property
is set to the computed value of the corresponding relative property."

This rule works fine for case A. In case B, it seems that I can only get
padding-before (and padding-top) set to 4pt if I consider that the
shorthand is not equivalent to setting the absolute property explicitly,
so that the explicit value of the relative property is used (for both).

But then what about this?
C <fo:block padding="3pt">....

This seems to imply the following values should be set:

padding-before=0pt, padding-top=0pt (initial values)
padding-top=3pt (from the shorthand)
padding-before=3pt (set from the corresponding padding-top property)

But here, I want to use the value set by the shorthand to set the
relative property.
In other words, the behavior that seems natural is that the shorthand
setting of the absolute property is "weaker" than the explicit setting
of the corresponding relative property. If that's what you meant,
perhaps you could make it clearer in the next (final?) version.

Thanks in advance for your feedback,
Karen Lease (FOP contributer)



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org

Received on Friday, 16 February 2001 09:47:10 UTC