- From: Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net>
- Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:50:05 -0000 (GMT)
- To: "Print and Page Layout Community Group" <public-ppl@w3.org>
On Wed, March 6, 2013 3:04 pm, Dave Pawson wrote: > On 6 March 2013 14:58, Jean Kaplansky <jeankap@gmail.com> wrote: >> I agree. Modularity is working out well for other groups. It's worth >> the effort to go modular than to over extend with limited resources. > > Ditto.... my only concern is syntactic integration? > How to specify where element x is valid for xsl-fo? > I.e. how a module integrates? > > [Tony, please don't say anywhere :-) There is much more than syntactic integration, I'm afraid. The simplistic approach to integration would be to define additions in terms of the 'parameter entities' in Section 6.2, Formatting Object Content, [1] in XSL 1.1. However, verbiage such as this from fo:footnote [2]: An fo:footnote is not permitted to have an fo:float, fo:footnote, or fo:marker as a descendant. Additionally, an fo:footnote is not permitted to have as a descendant an fo:block-container that generates an absolutely positioned area. would have to be rewritten to prohibit FOs based on the types of area they return, rather than naming prohibited FOs. The other part is defining how a stylesheet author -- or a running stylesheet or even a validating editor -- can know the capabilities of the particular FO processor. Regards, Tony. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl11/#d0e6532 [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl11/#fo_footnote
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2013 13:50:47 UTC