W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xsl-editors@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: Questions about markers

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:20:55 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030428091959.0190bbb8@172.27.10.30>
To: "Peter B. West" <pbwest@powerup.com.au>, xsl-editors@w3.org


Response to:

Comment 35 (public comment): lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xsl-editors/2003JanMar/0007.html

Message-ID: <3E428924.8040009@powerup.com.au>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 02:11:16 +1000
From: "Peter B. West" <pbwest@powerup.com.au>
To: xsl-editors <xsl-editors@w3.org>
Subject: Questions about markers

----------------------------------------------------------------


At 01:11 2003 02 07 +1000, Peter B. West wrote:

[Background elided--see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xsl-editors/2003JanMar/0007 ]


>Questions:
>
>Is this environment conceptually akin to that which would obtain
>were the fo:marker subtree transposed to the position in the FO
>tree occupied by the fo:retrieve-marker during phase 1 of FO tree
>construction?
>
>In this case, all properties specified and inherited are available to
>"normal" inheritance and to the core functions.

Yes.  This is what we're trying to say in the spec when it says
(under Trait Deriviation for 6.11.4 fo:retrieve-marker [1]):

  The properties and traits specified on the ancestors of the fo:retrieve-marker
  are taken into account when formatting the children of the retrieved fo:marker
  as if the children had the same ancestors as the fo:retrieve-marker.

(This does mean that inheritance and property function evaluation does sometimes 
depend on what happens during the formatting and pagination process.)

Do you have a suggestion on how the spec could be clearer in this area?

Paul Grosso
for XSL FO Subgroup

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/slice6.html#fo_retrieve-marker
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 10:22:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:53 GMT