- From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 08:47:08 -0600
- To: David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk, xsl-list@lists.mulberrytech.com
- Cc: xsl-editors@w3.org
At 08:42 2003 04 04 +0100, David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk wrote: >Ken Holman said: >> At 2003-04-03 18:51 +0200, you wrote: >> > <fo:region-before display-align="before" extent="10mm"/> >> > <fo:region-body margin-top="10mm"/> >> >> BTW, tools may accept the order above, but they do so >> improperly. Another >> tool might reject the above because the order implied by the >> Recommendation >> is that the body is specified first. >> >> Section 6.2 states the content is described using >> content-model syntax, but >> doesn't say that the order as expressed using that syntax can be >> violated. Section 6.4.12 explicitly orders region-body first. > >I queried this the other day; > >Question to the WG, is the order <emph>Required</emph> >as per 6.4.12 > >Contents: > >(region-body,region-before?,region-after?,region-start?,region-end?) Where did you send this query? I can't find it on the xsl-editors archive at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xsl-editors/2003JanMar/. However, see http://www.w3.org/Style/XSL/2003/01/FO-DoC#02OctDec-0063 for the answer to Eliot Kimber who basically asked the same question. It is an error if an XSL-FO result tree it doesn't conform to the content model restrictions in the XSL spec. "It is an error" means that an implementation may (but need not) issue a message or warning and may (but need not) recover in some implementation dependent way. In this case, I understand many (most?) implementations choose to recover in the obvious way. But Ken is right that you may someday come across an implementation that rejects such a document/stylesheet, and it would be well within its right to do so. paul
Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 09:48:28 UTC