XSL FO conformance

This was posted on the public list.

>Date: Wed,  5 Apr 2000 18:02:38 +0100
>X-Mailer: 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs  Lucid (via feedmail 8 Q)
>From: "Sebastian Rahtz" <sebastian.rahtz@computing-services.oxford.ac.uk>
>To: xsl-editors@w3.org
>cc: xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
>Subject: XSL FO conformance
>Sender: owner-xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
>Reply-To: xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
>
>In the March 27th draft, section 8 discusses conformance; for
>formatting objects, Appendix B says whether or not an FO is "basic" or 
>"extended". But Appendix C does not do the same for properties. Is
>there a list somewhere which I have missed?
>
>Also on conformance:
>
>a) why is <table-footer> extended, but
><table-header> basic? why would anyone be able to implement one but
>not the other?
>
>b) I fear I miss an explanation of how to do lists in "basic" mode,
>without <list-item-label>. can anyone expound?
>
>Sebastian "hoping for basic conformance" Rahtz
>
>
>
> XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
>
>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail reflects the personal opinion of the author.
 -- Unless explicitly so stated in the text, it does not represent an
    official position of Adobe Systems, Inc.
 -- Unless explicitly so stated in the text, it does not represent an
    official opinion of the W3C XSL Working group.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Stephen Deach                            |  Sr Computer Scientist
  408-536-6521 (office)                    |  Adobe Systems Inc.
  408-537-4214 (fax)                       |  Mail Stop W15-424
  sdeach@adobe.com (no advertizing)        |  345 Park Ave
                                           |  San Jose, CA 95110-2704
                                           |  USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

Received on Friday, 7 April 2000 16:09:31 UTC