https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37579
--- Comment #23 from Luca Furini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-05-05 05:59:03 PST --- Thank you for all your comments and additions, Andreas! It's good to be back after quite a long time (enough to forget the good old habit of using JUnit!) (In reply to comment #22) > (In reply to comment #21) > > The problem with getLengthBase() seems to point to a difficulty with > > property-inheritance: strictly speaking, the footnote should inherit the > > computed value for start-indent(), > > Sorry, I obviously meant "end-indent". What I still cannot understand is why there is no such problem with start-indent = "body-start", which is resolved ok ... (In reply to comment #17) > Right, my first instinct would be to include footnotes for the table-header > only on the first page that is spanned by the table, and for the table-footer > only on the last page. It's an interesting idea, and probably the easiest to implement. Personally, I would have placed them all in the first page spanned by the table, although this would be a bit more problematic in terms of relative order between the footnotes. What do other think in this regard? Anyway, I think this is a situation not perfectly covered by the specs, which forbid footnotes in static-contents but say nothing about footnotes in table headers / footers, which are not so different. The condition defining where a block area returned by fo:footnote is permitted does not explicitly take into account the situation when a single fo:foonote generates several anchor areas in different pages, although the definition "The term anchor-area is defined to mean the last area that is generated and returned by the fo:inline child of the fo:footnote." could maybe be read as a justification for placing all the notes in the last page where the table appears ... -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
