Anders was the editor of the spec, and in the best position to provide a reading on interpretation. Sharon was the chair of that activity, so in the best position to trigger a response.
G. On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Vincent Hennebert <vhenneb...@gmail.com>wrote: > On 09/03/11 17:16, Glenn Adams wrote: > > The reason I ask is it is possible that Vincent's interpretation of the > spec > > (and the current FOP implementation) is incorrect. > > I am not saying it is or > > it isn't. It has been my experience with the XSL-FO spec and the XSL-FO > > group that straightforward interpretations are not always possible or in > > agreement with the intention of the authors. > > > > I would suggest contacting Anders Berglund or Sharon Adler to verify that > > the filed W3C bug is accepted as a bug or not before taking action in > FOP. > > Well, is it really necessary to escalate this to a particular member > of the XSL Working Group? My bug reports have always been taken into > account so far, we just have to be patient. > > We can decide to not apply the patch and wait for clarification by the > W3C. This would mean that the current implementation would stay as it is > for another couple of months, or more. > > As far as I’m concerned, I think the current behaviour is not > satisfying, so I will stick to my +1. > > > > It might also produce additional information that will help resolve this > > issue without declaring an explicit variance from the spec. It would also > be > > useful to survey other implementations as well to determine their > behavior > > on this point. > > > > G. > > Thanks, > Vincent > > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Chris Bowditch > > <bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com>wrote: > > > >> On 09/03/2011 16:56, Glenn Adams wrote: > >> > >> Hi Glenn, > >> > >> Has there been any definite response from the W3C for your original bug > >>> filing that confirms your interpretation and agrees there is a problem? > If > >>> not (and I don't see a response yet in the W3C bug report), then it may > be > >>> premature to take a decision. It may be that your interpretation of the > >>> specification is not consistent with the XSL-FO group's interpretation, > and > >>> that this difference is the source of the trouble. > >>> > >> > >> It's true that that the W3C may not agree with this view, but without a > >> change it is not possible to make an image a clickable link, which is a > >> fairly common requirement. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Chris > >> > >> > >>> G. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Vincent Hennebert < > vhenneb...@gmail.com<mailto: > >>> vhenneb...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>> > >>> I’d like to launch a vote for the integration of the patch from > >>> Bugzilla #50763 [1] into the Trunk. > >>> > >>> The implementation of fo:basic-link would deviate from the XSL-FO > 1.1 > >>> Recommendation, and behave as if the following sentence were added > to > >>> Section 6.9.2, “fo:basic-link”: > >>> “The extent, in the block-progression-dimension, of the > >>> content-rectangle of an inline-area generated by fo:basic-link, > is > >>> the minimum required to enclose the allocation-rectangles of > >>> all the > >>> inline-areas stacked within that inline-area.” > >>> > >>> This sentence is borrowed, with minor modifications, from the > >>> definition > >>> of the maximum-line-rectangle in Section 4.5, “Line-areas”. > >>> > >>> A bug [2] has been raised at W3C and the implementation may be > changed > >>> in the future to match the new requirements that may follow from its > >>> resolution. > >>> > >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50763 > >>> [2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11672 > >>> > >>> +1 from me. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Vincent > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > >
