- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:46:31 +0000
- To: xsl-editors@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6268
Victor Mote <vic@outfitr.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |vic@outfitr.com
--- Comment #3 from Victor Mote <vic@outfitr.com> 2009-06-01 16:46:30 ---
I don't see that the proposed clarification answers either of the two questions
posed:
1. From whom do the child objects inherit properties? Absent any clarification
here, I understand the answer to be that they inherit from ancestors in the FO
tree instead (as I thought more reasonable) from the page-number or
page-number-citation objects that they are grafted into. This answer would seem
to make these constructs useless, or at least very awkward to use. However, it
is certainly possible to implement it this way, so I consider this part of the
question to be closed.
2. How do you get block content to fit into a "single normal inline-area"? As
far as I can tell, this requirement is NOT possible to implement, with or
without the clarification offered, so I would ask the WG to please further
clarify what is supposed to happen here. For example, admittedly contrived,
assuming that the fo:folio-prefix shown belongs to the reference-page-sequence
of the fo:page-number-citation shown:
...
<fo:folio-prefix>
Volume
<fo:inline>
<fo:block>The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire</fo:block>
<fo:inline>
</fo:folio-prefix>
...
<fo:block>... on page <fo:page-number-citation>.</fo:block>
The fo:inline shown returns "one or more normal inline-areas ... together with
any normal block-areas, page-level-out-of-line areas, and
reference-level-out-of-line areas returned by the children of the fo:inline".
How does an implementation go about making all of this fit into the "single
normal inline-area" that the fo:page-number-citation generates and returns?
--
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 Monday, 1 June 2009 16:46:38 UTC