Joerg, you can freely get rid of that stuff. I originally introduced it when I had more faith in the spec, and thought that the authors knew what they were talking about when it came to to their math. Specifically, the lineage pairs is an abstract concept that I can see no implementation use for. In fact, I can't see any theoretical use for the idea either.
Arved,
I'm glad that I am not the only one who could see no purpose in the discussion of "lineage". However, I'd like your comments on a couple of aspects of lineage.
The first of the two parts of the definition:
<quote>A set of nodes in a tree is a lineage if:
* there is a node N in the set such that all the nodes in the set are ancestors of N, and
</quote>
This seems a strange.
<quote>Normal areas represent areas in the "normal flow of text"; that is, they become area children of the areas generated by the formatting object to which they are returned. Normal areas have a returned-by lineage of size one.</quote>
I wondered about the point of all this, but in looking at the Errata, I found a series of modifications for the description of 'Areas' in the description of fo:bidi-override, fo:inline and fo:basic-link as follows:
<quote>Section 6.6.2
Replace:
in the "Areas:" portion "returns these areas, any page-level-out-of-line areas, and any reference-level-out-of-line areas returned by the children"
with
"returns these areas, together with any normal block-areas, page-level-out-of-line areas, and reference-level-out-of-line areas returned by the children"</quote>
It seesm to me that these changes create normal block areas with a lineage with size greater than one.
What do you think?
-- Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/ "Lord, to whom shall we go?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
