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

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

From: Arved Sandstrom <Arved_37@chebucto.ns.ca>
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 18:37:59 -0400
To: <www-xsl-fo@w3.org>
Message-Id: <01020318513000.01095@localhost.localdomain>
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.


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

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