Re: [Fwd: 7.22.2 overflow: :request to support of text-overflow]

On 25 April 2012 12:50, Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net> wrote:
> I thought there was a Bugzilla entry for this but I seem to be wrong about
> that.
>
> If we postulate XSL-FO going forward with a stronger correspondence to
> CSS, how would you see XSL-FO handling requests such as this where:
>
> a) CSS has a property definition
>
> b) Some or all of the CSS definition may be "at risk", e.g. 'The <string>
> value, and the 2-value syntax "{1,2}" and functionality are all at risk.'
>
> c) There exists at least one XSL-FO implementation [1] with similar but
> different syntax/semantics
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Tony.

Review and judge ea on its own merit?
I don't think it reasonable to choose either option as a basis for decisions?

regards


>
> [1] http://www.antennahouse.com/xslfo/extension.htm#axf.overflow-replace
>
> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
> Subject: 7.22.2 overflow: :request to support of text-overflow
> From:    "Adrian Stadelmann" <Adrian.Stadelmann@loewenfels.ch>
> Date:    Thu, March 22, 2012 4:31 pm
> To:      "xsl-editors@w3.org" <xsl-editors@w3.org>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi,
> It whould be very helpful to use a text-overflow as in
> http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-ui/#text-overflow0
>
> why:
> the overflow="hidden" is not very useful for a print media in case of
> text, because it may cut a letter.
>
> Doing this outside of the FO namespace is also a bad solution because it
> requires font size/style calculation.
>
> see also my
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9807926/add-suspensive-dots-at-end-of-a-text-in-case-of-overflow-hidden
> question.
>
> other ideas?
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:11:01 UTC