Re: Is "0" valid for all XSL-FO lengths?

On 19 January 2014 20:03, Tony Graham <tgraham@mentea.net> wrote:
> On Tue, January 14, 2014 2:13 pm, Dave Pawson wrote:

>> Picking up on this and taking it further, the nonsensical irregularity of
>> the properties has always irked.
>>   One thing we could do is 'regularise' them.
>
> Proposing to radically alter the properties IMO isn't quite the same as
> trying to understand the corner cases of what's (purposely or
> inadvertently) in the current spec.  If we are to do anything layered on
> top of the current spec, then we need to understand the current spec, but
> we're not showing much appetite for looking into its nuances.
>
>> My favourite moan is the hard link to CSS.
>> Even worse, the color syntax 'mess'.
>
> Does this relate to
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ppl/2013Jun/0017.html?


Yes, directly. I was trying to  develop the Schema for FO when
I came across that nightmare.

Rather than take a sensible approach to adopting one color
schema, FO seems to have followed CSS and said 'anything goes'.
  Mixing lengths is another irregular property set.

I'm not even sure it is a corner case either, unless you see it
as a dirty neglected corner?


> we're not showing much appetite for looking into its nuances.

No, agreed. Until we have a clear direction suggest this stays
on the back burner.

[Should be another thread]
Pondering... Since feedback, formatter to 'stylesheet' is
a hotter topic, combing that with the title of this group;
  How about we specify what we mean by print layout?
"Here is an area" = the thing to be laid out.
"Here is some content" = what is to be laid out.
X = this is the formatters response.

Define X? Then tighten up the first two?

regards





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

Received on Monday, 20 January 2014 06:01:05 UTC