W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xsl-editors@w3.org > July to September 2007

RE: folio-prefix (and other) content

From: Victor Mote <vic@outfitr.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:07:10 -0600
To: "'XSL Editors'" <xsl-editors@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001201c7d089$b7368910$6297880a@jackson>

Dear Editors:

I have an additional question pertinent to this thread. The content models
for fo:folio-prefix and fo:folio-suffix seem to be inconsistent with the
"Areas" description for fo:page-number, fo:page-number-citation, and
fo:page-number-citation-last. (A similar issue may exist for the
index-related formatting objects as well, but I can't yet see for sure).

Each of these "Areas" descriptions indicates that the object "generates and
returns a single normal inline-area". If this is true, then it seems that no
block-level objects should be allowed as descendants of fo:folio-prefix and
fo:folio-suffix. Although block-level objects are currently prohibited as
immediate descendants (children), they would currently be permitted in
succeeding generations as children of fo:basic-link, fo:inline-container,
etc.

On the other hand, if block-level descendants are permitted, then I think
those objects needs to be have an "Areas" description similar to that for
fo:inline, that is: "... generates one or more normal inline-areas. The
[object] returns these areas together with any normal block-areas ...
returned by the children of the [object]."

Of course, I may misunderstand something here instead, in which case any
comments that might set me straight would be appreciated. Thank you again.

Victor Mote

> This question applies at least to fo:folio-prefix, 
> fo:folio-suffix, but also seems to apply to 
> fo:index-page-number-prefix, fo:index-page-number-suffix, 
> fo:index-page-citation-list-separator, and 
> fo:index-page-citation-range-separator.
> 
> Each of these objects has the following content model:
>     (#PCDATA | %inline;)*.
> 
> The question: From whom do the child objects inherit 
> properties? The use of the term "static" for some of these 
> seems to imply that they inherit normally, that is, by 
> reference to their ancestors in the tree. However, that seems 
> unlikely. It is easy, for example, to imagine an 
> fo:page-number-citation with a 12-point "Glossary-" prefix 
> surrounded by 10-point text in a footnote. Am I correct to 
> assume that instead this content should be "grafted" in a 
> manner similar to the way that fo:marker content inherits 
> from the fo:retrieve-marker that it replaces? Or would the 
> fo:page-number-citation need to explicitly set the font-size 
> to the correct value?
> 
> In any case, I think an explicit statement in the 
> Recommendation addressing this issue for each of these 
> objects would be helpful.
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 20:07:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 December 2014 20:06:37 UTC