W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xsl-fo@w3.org > February 2001

Re: PDF bookmarks (was: Re: extensions to FO)

From: Nikolai Grigoriev <grig@renderx.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 20:55:06 +0300
Message-ID: <012a01c08e0d$f5b51be0$0a01a8c0@grig>
To: <www-xsl-fo@w3.org>

> The only question I would have is, I don't think the spec as it is currently
> set up, allows for a "role" property to be placed on fo:marker. The prose
> accompanying this property states that "role" can be applied to any FO
> contained within fo:flow or fo:static-content; I'm uncertain as to what they
> mean by "contain", but it looks more like any FO that could be a child of
> fo:flow or fo:static-content, as opposed to any FO that could be a
> descendant.

The exact wording in [7.3.2. "role"] says:

"It is used by all formatting objects that can be contained in fo:flow or
fo:static-content (all formatting objects that can be directly created from an
XML source element)."

Reading the part in parentheses, I tend to the opposite interpretation to yours:
all descendants of fo:flow/fo:static-content are eligible for bearing @role.
"Contains" is a transitive relationship, isn't it? An extra evidence:
accessibility properties are explicitly allowed on e.g fo:inline - which cannot
be an immediate child of a fo:flow/fo:static-content.

> unless the spec is completely random I would have
> to assume that the absence of Common Accessibility properties
> on an FO means that you don't use them.

Let's make an allowance for some inconsistency in the spec :-). However, an only
option to get an authoritative judgement: let's ask the authors. If someone of
the WG reads this thread, maybe (s)he can shed some light?

Received on Saturday, 3 February 2001 13:22:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:09:52 UTC