On 01.12.2005 13:30:05 Luca Furini wrote: > Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > The first concerns indent inheritance [...] > > > > So what I'd like to do is implement the alternative behaviour as a > > configurable option in the FO tree. The default would still be what the > > specification describes (see [1]), but users would be able to set a > > switch that would make FOP reset start-indent and end-indent to zero in > > cases where in the area tree a reference area boundary would be crossed > > (block-containers and table-cell, mainly). > > I agree with the need to provide users what they expect, but I did not > understand where this switch will be:
I did not say. > in the configuration file (+1) or in > the document itself as an extension property / element (not so > enthusiastic about that)? > > In the first case the file would be correct, only its rendering will be > "deliberately wrong": the user is aware that he is requiring a > non-standard rendering *to the formatter*. > > In the second the document itself would require a non-standard rendering, > which only our implementation will provide; in other words, it seems to me > that this solution would give the impression that the file itself is > enough to achieve the expected result, while it is not. > > Or maybe you were thinking of something else? No. The second idea would kill the effect of the change. Someone would still have to modify a stylesheet to make it work with FOP. That is not the idea. I assume it will be good enough to control the option via the user agent and indirectly through the configuration file. > > The second issue is about the collapsing border model. Currently, having > > an fo:table with no explicit border-collapse="separate" results in a > > warning message in the log as well as frequent exceptions due to the > > fact that this border model not completely implemented. I would like to > > modify the FO tree in a way that a table always reports being in > > separate border model mode. The other idea would have been to change the > > default but I don't particularly like that approach because it breaks > > the spec. Obviously, this is only a temporary measure until the > > collapsing border model becomes usable. > > I agree with you, I prefer the first option. Thanks for your feedback. Jeremias Maerki
