RE: XSL 1.1 WD comment: The properties which may be attached to an FO.


As discussed previously in email, it is the case that any
property can be placed on any FO, though only certain 
properties apply to certain FOs.

The XSL FO SG agrees to make this clearer in section 5.1.

We also plan to add a section 5.1.5 about applicability to 
help clarify.

Paul Grosso
for the XSL FO SG 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> [] On Behalf Of Mazza, Glen R., ,CPMS
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 January, 2004 18:36
> To: ''
> Subject: XSL 1.1 WD comment: The properties which may be 
> attached to an F O.
> Hello, I'm Glen Mazza of Electronic Data Systems and of the 
> XML Apache FOP
> Project.
> I'm unsure, after reading the 1.1 Working Draft of the XSL 
> Specification,
> about the set of properties which may be attached to an FO.  The
> Introduction and Overview, Section 1.1.2 Formatting [1], gives this
> statement:
> "Although every formatting property may be specified on every 
> formatting
> object, for each formatting object class, only a subset of 
> the formatting
> properties are used to determine the traits for objects of 
> that class."
> Section 5.1.4, Inheritance [2], gives this rule:
> "The inheritable properties can be placed on any formatting object."
> [1]
> [2]
> Two comments on these statements:
> 1.) 5.1.4's statement seems to contradict 1.1.2's by implying that
> noninheritable properties cannot be placed on every 
> formatting object.  If
> 1.1.2's statement is correct, however, it would be better for 
> the reader if
> 5.1.4's were written more unambiguously as: 
> The inheritable properties, like all properties, can be placed on any
> formatting object.
> 2.) The rule given by 1.1.2--every property can be attached 
> to every FO--is
> very significant for implementors, and should not be limited to just a
> subordinate clause of a sentence in the introduction.  Of course,
> introductions should not be the only place where a 
> specification rule is
> given.  
> Somewhere in the body of the specification this rule should 
> be explicitly
> stated--absent such an statement, I'm not getting a "firm 
> handshake" from
> the authors about this rule--causing me to think that 5.1.4's current
> statement is what they were  intending.  (But I may be wrong 
> here--I may
> have missed the section where this rule was explicitly 
> stated.  Apologies if
> this is the case.) 
> Thanks,
> Glen Mazza
> glen.mazza at

Received on Tuesday, 19 October 2004 20:23:03 UTC