From a user view, this definitely makes sense. But I cannot say that I fully grasp what the spec says about line-building and inline areas. It almost seems that line-stacking-strategy="line-height" might address parts of this problem, but I'm not sure.
The patch itself looks ok to me although some of the "business" logic feels a bit heavy on the area tree side whereas the layout managers almost don't change. Also, I would have welcomed a note/link somewhere in the code (and/or test cases) about the possibly non-standard interpretation of the spec. +1 with a request to add the link(s)/notes mentioned above. And +1 to continue watching for the W3C WG's response on this. On 09.03.2011 17:44:50 Vincent Hennebert wrote: > Id 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 Jeremias Maerki
