On 10/03/11 10:05, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > 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.
line-stacking-strategy is used in the computation of the heights of the line-areas, which are block-areas. But basic-link produces inline-areas. In other words, when line-stacking-strategy kicks in, it’s ‘too late’, the heights of the basic-link areas have already been determined. That is, if I understand the spec correctly... > 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: >> 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 > > > > > Jeremias Maerki Vincent
