Both proposed changes are now implemented. I'm not sure if I got everything right WRT the indent behaviour. I guess I'll have to wait for feedback from those people who wanted that "feature" in the first place.
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=354763&view=rev http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=354075&view=rev On 01.12.2005 12:53:56 Jeremias Maerki wrote: > Hey gang, > > There are two issues I'd like to discuss. They come from feedback from > customers: > > The first concerns indent inheritance which I documented in [1]. It > turns out that most commercial implementations decided to deliberately > break indent inheritance to work around the expectations of > inexperienced XSL-FO users. This obviously breaks the specification and > it creates an interoperability issue. This becomes an issue, especially > since I know a few companies that would like switch from commercial > implementations back to Apache FOP now that it's "more usable" now. I've > asked the XSL WG in [2] on their updated opinion about the issue. There > are arguments in both directions. > > 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). > > [1] http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/IndentInheritance > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xsl-editors/2005OctDec/0024.html > > > 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 was recently thinking about > doing a scaled-down implementation which ignores the tricky interactions > between headers/footers and the table-body. But my priorities here are > not particularly high, so it might be some time until I get to this. > > Any objections? Comments? > > Thanks, > Jeremias Maerki Jeremias Maerki
