W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xsl-editors@w3.org > January to March 2004

XSL 1.1 WD comment: The properties which may be attached to an F O.

From: Mazza, Glen R., ,CPMS <glen.mazza@cpms.osd.mil>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:36:15 -0500
Message-ID: <D8AA9A440E3107429C019300B1C0AA8757AE3E@ddsmtanrs002.cpms.osd.mil>
To: "'xsl-editors@w3.org'" <xsl-editors@w3.org>

Hello, I'm Glen Mazza of Electronic Data Systems and of the XML Apache FOP
Project.

I'm unsure, after reading the 1.1 Working Draft of the XSL Specification,
about the set of properties which may be attached to an FO.  The
Introduction and Overview, Section 1.1.2 Formatting [1], gives this
statement:

"Although every formatting property may be specified on every formatting
object, for each formatting object class, only a subset of the formatting
properties are used to determine the traits for objects of that class."

Section 5.1.4, Inheritance [2], gives this rule:

"The inheritable properties can be placed on any formatting object."

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xsl11-20031217/#d0e178
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-xsl11-20031217/#inheritance

Two comments on these statements:

1.) 5.1.4's statement seems to contradict 1.1.2's by implying that
noninheritable properties cannot be placed on every formatting object.  If
1.1.2's statement is correct, however, it would be better for the reader if
5.1.4's were written more unambiguously as: 

The inheritable properties, like all properties, can be placed on any
formatting object.

2.) The rule given by 1.1.2--every property can be attached to every FO--is
very significant for implementors, and should not be limited to just a
subordinate clause of a sentence in the introduction.  Of course,
introductions should not be the only place where a specification rule is
given.  

Somewhere in the body of the specification this rule should be explicitly
stated--absent such an statement, I'm not getting a "firm handshake" from
the authors about this rule--causing me to think that 5.1.4's current
statement is what they were  intending.  (But I may be wrong here--I may
have missed the section where this rule was explicitly stated.  Apologies if
this is the case.) 

Thanks,

Glen Mazza
EDS
glen.mazza at eds.com
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2004 08:21:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:49 UTC