W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xsl-editors@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: FW: Action: Replies to Glen Mazza's comments on Bookmarks

From: Steve Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2005 15:47:23 -0800
To: Glen Mazza <grm7793@yahoo.com>, XSL Editors List <xsl-editors@w3.org>
Message-id: <6.1.1.1.2.20050305150844.07e58a80@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>
Sorry for the long delay in answering your comment, I was on vacation for 
the month of February and came back to series of meetings.

At 11:31 PM 2/4/2005, Glen Mazza wrote:

>Thanks Steve for your thorough response--my comments
>below:
>
>--- Steve Zilles wrote
> >Glen Mazza wrote:
> >       49.)  Section 6.11.3,
> >       fo:bookmark-title, the two
> >       statements listed in the Constraints section appear
> > to
> >       be duplicated from fo:bookmark, and are not
> > relevant
> >       for this FO.
> >
> >
> > It is indeed likely that these constraints were
> > duplicated from
> > bookmark, but they are relevant to the
> > fo:bookmark-title and the fix is
> > to change "bookmark" to "bookmark-title" in the two
> > constraints.
> >
>
>I am unsure here -- please check this one again.  Note
>that the content model for fo:bookmark-tree is only
>(#PCDATA) (no %inline; or %block;), so at least the
>second constraint (about child inline areas) appears
>not to be relevant.

#PCDATA is converted to a sequence of fo:characters which
generate glyph-areas which are child inline-areas, see

   4.2.1 Area Types
   There are two types of areas: block-areas and inline-areas.
   [...]
   A glyph-area is a special kind of inline-area which has
   no child areas, and has a single glyph image as its content.

Therefore, it is appropriate that the second constraint apply.

>   But again I am unsure.
>
>[Another issue:  I can't seem to find the email now,
>but someone in the Working Group about a year or so
>ago mentioned that the usual descriptions of FO's
>generating and returning areas are not really relevant
>for the bookmark FO's because they are off-document
>items.  I'm inclined to agree with that idea--having
>an Areas returned description and Constraints related
>to areas for the bookmark FO's are somewhat confusing,
>because these FO's don't appear to be really part of
>the Area Model--but rather external pointers to it.]

The point is not whether something is "off document" or not, but whether a 
formatted displayable result is produced. The bookmark-title is intended to 
be formatted into displayable form and, therefore, the normal area model 
rules are applicable to it.

Although, the XSL spec does not specify any constraints on the layout of 
the areas returned by bookmark title (to become children of the areas 
returned by fo:bookmark), it is the case that such areas are likely to be 
arranged like a list by many user agents. Hence the requirement of the 
first constraint above, should apply to insure no unnecessary fragmentation 
of the bookmark-title area occurs.

I believe the first constraint says that a bookmark will return multiple 
areas only if it parent also has multiple areas. For bookmarks, multiple 
areas are mostly likely to occur when a narrow display of the list forces 
line wrapping or because the list of bookmarks is shown on multiple pages. 
This is NOT, however, specified in the XSL specification, it is up to the 
user agent.

Steve Zilles
115 Lansberry Court,
Los Gatos, CA 95032-4710
steve@zilles.org 
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2005 05:58:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:58 GMT