W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xsl-editors@w3.org > October to December 2008

[Bug 6268] [XSLFO] fo:folio-prefix (and other) content

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:03:27 +0000
To: xsl-editors@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1LDIXH-0003cC-Of@farnsworth.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6268





--- Comment #1 from Tony Graham <Tony.Graham@MenteithConsulting.com>  2008-12-18 13:03:27 ---
>From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xsl-editors/2007JulSep/0010.html:

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]."


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2008 13:03:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 11:00:00 GMT