Comments down under...
> -Original Message-
> From: Keiron Liddle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: May 7, 2002 4:40 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [REDESIGN] Line layout manager discussion
>
>
> On Tue, 2002-05-07 at 03:56, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
On Tue, 2002-05-07 at 03:56, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> > >From a practical viewpoint it makes sense to wrap the block in an inline
> > area with the traits and treat the block normally in layout terms but it
> > still feels uncomfortable. It also introduces a whole lot of other
> > questions about
Interleaved commentary...
> -Original Message-
> From: Keiron Liddle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: May 6, 2002 5:21 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [REDESIGN] Line layout manager discussion
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> What it boils down to seems to b
Hi All,
What it boils down to seems to be if the inline fo returns the block
area or generates an inline area that contains the block area. If it
generates an inline area then it will set traits on that area (border,
background, link, padding etc.).
If that is the case why is a footnote inline n
Arnd,
I just tried the 642 build, and it does export SVG. Unfortunatley, it
does not import.
Peter
Arnd Beißner wrote:
>Editing SVG with Adobe Illustrator 10 works ok (small wonder), though the
>licence is
>fairly expensive if you don't use it regularly. The drawing app in
>OpenOffice may
Keiron Liddle wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-05-04 at 18:07, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> > I couldn't tell from the SVG source what you prepared the file with. I
would
> > like to use SVG myself. There is no way I am going to handcode it,
though
> > (just as with FO).
>
> I actually wrote it by hand.
> I t
On Sat, 2002-05-04 at 18:07, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> I couldn't tell from the SVG source what you prepared the file with. I would
> like to use SVG myself. There is no way I am going to handcode it, though
> (just as with FO).
I actually wrote it by hand.
I tried using an editor but gave up, ins
Arved,
Again, I agree that, in the conceptual area tree described in the spec,
blocks embedded in inline-area generating FOs in the fo tree (e.g.,
fo:inline and fo:basic-link), themselves embedded in a parent fo:block,
do not bubble up to the same level as the parent fo:block. Going back
to
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: May 5, 2002 12:55 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [REDESIGN] Line layout manager discussion
>
>
> Arved,
>
> I agree that there is no need to tie the rendering to any part
Arved,
I agree that there is no need to tie the rendering to any particular
model, as long as the results are equivalent. The discussions that span
this list and the Xslfo-proc-devel list testify that there are many
approaches to process of layout. However, if I am reading this
correctly, t
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> I couldn't tell from the SVG source what you prepared the file with. I would
> like to use SVG myself. There is no way I am going to handcode it, though
> (just as with FO).
Tell me what you need and i design a diagram description
language and an XSL to transform it into
> -Original Message-
> From: Keiron Liddle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: May 3, 2002 9:31 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [REDESIGN] Line layout manager discussion
>
> Hi devs,
Be careful with the abbreviations. :-) One small slip of the keys and we&
Comments below.
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: May 3, 2002 10:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [REDESIGN] Line layout manager discussion
>
[ SNIP ]
> From what I see here you are changing the shape of the tr
Keiron et al.,
Just a quick reaction to this - I'm off to sit next to the footpath
reading the newspapers and drinking tea.
From what I see here you are changing the shape of the tree. The
motivation seems to be to make it explicit that block areas contained
within an inline area must bubbl
Hi Keiron,
I think this is a good start. I especially like the illustration which
covers all aspects of the problem.
I have some suggestions for the proposed text (see below).
-Karen
Keiron Liddle wrote:
>
> Hi devs,
>
> I have attached a picture of how I think this process should work (in
>
Arved,
I'm definitely in favor of deciding how we think things are supposed to
be laid out. Of course it would be nice if we were on the same
wavelength with the majority of FO users and implementors... but I'm not
too worried about that.
Besides the stuff we're talking about currently, we need
Peter,
Here's my point of view on where line-breaking (perhaps including
hyphenation) happens.
The end result of layout is a sequence of nested areas. However while
layout is happening, line-breaking logic has to "pretend" that it's only
working on a flat row of characters and other inline leaf
Arved,
My apologies. I was just taking the opportunity to think aloud about
aspects of the interaction between inline-areas and block-areas. Trying
to make sense of the various elements of the spec leaves your ears buzzing.
Peter
Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>>For the record, I disagree with Arv
Keiron,
Keiron Liddle wrote:
> I'm almost thinking of going a step further.
> Maybe we could add annotations to the spec to clarify these things
> with our understanding and then present this information.
Yes indeed. And an index, including especially a concept index.
>
> It seems to me tha
Hi devs,
I have attached a picture of how I think this process should work (in
principle not necessarily with actual areas or code).
The spec should say something like:
4.7.2
A block level formatting object which contains inline level formatting
objects that will create inline areas will create
Hi devs,
I have attached a picture of how I think this process should work (in
principle not necessarily with actual areas or code).
The spec should say something like:
4.7.2
A block level formatting object which contains inline level formatting
objects that will create inline areas will create
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: May 2, 2002 11:26 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [REDESIGN] Line layout manager discussion
>
> Karen Lease wrote:
>
[ SNIP ]
> >For the record, I disagree with Arved'
On 2002.05.03 04:56 Peter B. West wrote:
> What would be even more generally useful would be to get the spec
> editors to put up a site, possibly with disclaimers plastered all over
> it, to which they post FAQs on the spec. They must get a lot of
> repeating questions from the various parties
r away) where I am
>satisfied that I understand the new design well.
>
>Arved
>
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Keiron Liddle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: May 2, 2002 6:18 AM
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: [REDESIGN] Line layout ma
Karen,
Comments below.
Karen Lease wrote:
>Arved, Keiron et. al.
>
>I guess logically it's true that the blocks nested in inlines should be
>wrapped in inline areas, but it makes me nervous :-)
>At least they cause line breaks, that much seems sure. I still think
>that we should put pressure on
Comments inline...actually, no, they're not, they are really block-stacking,
but you get the drift. :-)
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Karen Lease
> Sent: May 2, 2002 7:21 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subje
Arved, Keiron et. al.
I guess logically it's true that the blocks nested in inlines should be
wrapped in inline areas, but it makes me nervous :-)
At least they cause line breaks, that much seems sure. I still think
that we should put pressure on the spec editors to either get rid of
structure or
D]
> Subject: Re: [REDESIGN] Line layout manager discussion
>
> I agree with you (except for the last statment about one line).
>
> I found this statement interesting:
> 6.6.7. fo:inline
>
> "An fo:inline that is a child of an fo:footnote may not have block-level
> child
I agree with you (except for the last statment about one line).
I found this statement interesting:
6.6.7. fo:inline
"An fo:inline that is a child of an fo:footnote may not have block-level
children. An fo:inline that is a
descendant of an fo:leader or of the fo:inline child of an fo:footnote
Comments inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: J.U. Anderegg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: May 1, 2002 5:19 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: AW: [REDESIGN] Line layout manager discussion
>
> Questions:
>
> o A basic-link in PDF means an annotation - an annotation defines a
> rect
Comments inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: May 1, 2002 2:19 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [REDESIGN] Line layout manager discussion
>
[ SNIP ]
> Look at
>
> a paragraph of text with a block and mor
Arved,
Firstly, thanks for taking the trouble to do this. Your diagrams make
your argument beautifully clear, and facilitate discussion for everyone,
even XSL spec novices. Even me, who struggles to follow text-only
arguments. I haven't followed all of the posting yet, but one question
has
Discussion follows below.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Karen Lease
> Sent: April 29, 2002 5:39 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [REDESIGN] Line layout manager discussion
>
> Keiron Liddle wrote:
> > So why flatten the inline
Keiron Liddle wrote:
> Karen,
>
> On 2002.04.29 22:39 Karen Lease wrote:
>
>> It's certainly true that mixing blocks in inlines, as the spec says is
>> allowed, gets very complicated. I remember some discussion of this on
>> the list a long while ago and I think we actually asked the XSL editors
Karen,
Some extra topics I have been thinking about:
Determining best break.
(What is the level of keep broken by a hyphenation, is it 0 for
hyphenating and always for not?)
The best break position has an equal or lower keep value and is closer to
the optimum position.
If there are keeps betwe
35 matches
Mail list logo