DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14248>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14248 51-page FO example, could be added to the samples ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2002-12-02 22:15 ------- Bertrand, I am using this for testing at the moment. The main propblem I found with this is the presence of short-form empty fo:table-cell elements. I think there are seven in the file. The fo:footnotes in static-content are not strictly legal, but they are not strictly illegal either. The spec, in 6.10.3 fo:footnote Constraints, has: "It is an error if the fo:footnote occurs as a descendant of a flow that is not assigned to a region-body, or of an fo:block-container that generates absolutely positioned areas. In either case, the block-areas generated by the fo:footnote-body child of the fo:footnote shall be returned to the parent of the fo:footnote and placed in the area tree as though they were normal block-level areas." In the end, I left these fo:footnotes in, because, as I read the spec, I am obliged to return the block areas of fo:footnote-body elements. How should we handle the example? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
