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

XSL 1.1 WD fo:retrieve-table-marker

From: Peter B. West <pbwest@powerup.com.au>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:52:00 +1000
Message-ID: <40089540.7090500@powerup.com.au>
To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Cc: "'xsl-editors@w3.org'" <xsl-editors@w3.org>, fop-dev <fop-dev@xml.apache.org>

Paul,

Excuse me for firing off a comment from the hip, but I have just looked 
at the putative fo:retrieve-table-marker FO.  Prima facie, it looks to 
behave like fo:retrieve-marker, except with respect to table headers and 
footers.

The difference that immediately occurs to me is that fo:retrieve-marker 
can logically occurs after the layout of region-body, and, because the 
dimensions of those regions which are the targets of static-content are 
size-constrained by the applied master-page.  This simplifies the 
resolution of the marker.

With fo:retrieve-table-marker, the possibility seems to exist that the 
formatting of a table-marker may change the region-body layout, and the 
page boundaries, to the extent that the source fo:marker may change.  We 
have then another one of those awkward catch-22s of page layout.

I may have missed something in my brief scan of the text, and I would 
appreciate any light on the subject.  If my knee-jerk response is 
correct, fo:retrieve-table-marker can just be added to the list of 
layout "nasties".  It is hardly a show-stopper, given the similar 
unavoidable problems that already exist.

Another thing that occurs to me as a result of these considerations is 
that the editors might comment (even non-normatively) on such issues, 
and possible strategies for resolving them.  Your own non-normative 
feedback would be much appreciated.

Peter
-- 
Peter B. West <http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html>
Received on Friday, 16 January 2004 20:57:36 UTC

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