- From: Peter B. West <pbwest@powerup.com.au>
- Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:52:00 +1000
- To: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
- Cc: "'xsl-editors@w3.org'" <xsl-editors@w3.org>, fop-dev <fop-dev@xml.apache.org>
Paul, Excuse me for firing off a comment from the hip, but I have just looked at the putative fo:retrieve-table-marker FO. Prima facie, it looks to behave like fo:retrieve-marker, except with respect to table headers and footers. The difference that immediately occurs to me is that fo:retrieve-marker can logically occurs after the layout of region-body, and, because the dimensions of those regions which are the targets of static-content are size-constrained by the applied master-page. This simplifies the resolution of the marker. With fo:retrieve-table-marker, the possibility seems to exist that the formatting of a table-marker may change the region-body layout, and the page boundaries, to the extent that the source fo:marker may change. We have then another one of those awkward catch-22s of page layout. I may have missed something in my brief scan of the text, and I would appreciate any light on the subject. If my knee-jerk response is correct, fo:retrieve-table-marker can just be added to the list of layout "nasties". It is hardly a show-stopper, given the similar unavoidable problems that already exist. Another thing that occurs to me as a result of these considerations is that the editors might comment (even non-normatively) on such issues, and possible strategies for resolving them. Your own non-normative feedback would be much appreciated. Peter -- Peter B. West <http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html>
Received on Friday, 16 January 2004 20:57:36 UTC