- From: Arved Sandstrom <Arved_37@chebucto.ns.ca>
- Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 18:37:59 -0400
- To: <www-xsl-fo@w3.org>
On Sat, 03 Feb 2001, Nikolai Grigoriev wrote: > Arved, > > > 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. "Contains" is transitive in normal usage and normal English, yes. :-) One can only hope that maybe that's how it's used in the spec. I think the intent of "role" follows directly from the part in parentheses that you allude to: "all formatting objects that can be directly created from an XML source element". This does argue for the "descendants" interpretation. However, the fact that fo:inline can have a "role" and fo:marker cannot (by the spec) also follows directly from this same phrase - "directly created from an XML source element". I think what they were getting at is one can visualize an fo:block or fo:inline mapping to a <para> or an <image> in the source; much less so for an fo:marker. An fo:marker is a decoration, not the FO directly created from the source element. > > 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? No allowances, not ever! :-) Seriously, though, I think there is actually a spec-based argument, that I expressed above, which indicates that the lack of a "role" property on fo:marker was not an oversight. It's just not exactly the same argument I started out with. As I said, I like your proposed solution, and I think we ask. Regards, Arved P.S. Ever notice how the 2 of us usually start out with different interpretations? By the time the dust has settled everyone has a much better idea of exactly what the problem is... :-)
Received on Saturday, 3 February 2001 17:56:45 UTC