--- "Andreas L. Delmelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Sorry to be such a nitpick, but the 1.0 Rec. states
> literally:
>
> "An fo:marker is only permitted as the descendant of
> an fo:flow."
> and
> "An fo:retrieve-marker is only permitted as the
> descendant of an
> fo:static-content."
>
Th
> -Original Message-
> From: Griffin,Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday,
> April 06, 2005 9:59 AM
> > > 1. fo:static-content is to be repeated from its start on >
> every page, and truncated if it
> -Original Message-
> From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 9:59 AM
>
> 1. fo:static-content is to be repeated from its start on
> every page, and truncated if it doesn't fit.
You state this very simply and clearly here, but it has always struck me
> -Original Message-
> From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Just one comment:
>
> --- "Andreas L. Delmelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > After all, there is a key difference
> > between Flow and StaticContent when considering
> > markers: the first one can contain
> > fo:
Oops, make that three differences: their content
models (child FO's that the spec says they can have)
are slightly different.
Glen
--- Glen Mazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- The Web Maestro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > or something. That way, it's all in one (since it
> > can appare
--- The Web Maestro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> or something. That way, it's all in one (since it
> can apparently be
> repurposed anyway, with fo:flow being stuck into
> fo:static-content, and
Be careful here: fo:flow being placed into a "side
region", or fo:static-content being placed into
On Apr 5, 2005, at 6:20 PM, Glen Mazza wrote:
--- "Andreas L. Delmelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Except for ... (see above)? Hmm... Why would we even
*need* *two* *different* LMs?
Don't get me wrong: I'm *not* encouraging you to
merge the two classes completely ;-P
Still can't put my finger on it
--- "Andreas L. Delmelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > SideRegionLM handles the layout of input into a
> r-r-area
> > that does not have spans [...] does the same thing
> > regardless of the input coming from an fo:flow or
> an
> > fo:static-content.
> >
> > NormalFlowLM handles the layout of
Andreas, thanks for your well-thought out response
here. I appreciate the effort, and sorry for not
responding earlier. Just one comment:
--- "Andreas L. Delmelle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> After all, there is a key difference
> between Flow and
> StaticContent when considering markers: the
> -Original Message-
> From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --- Simon Pepping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > What Andreas argues here is what I would think as
> > well: The LMs are tied to the formatting objects,
> > not to the page regions they populate.
>
> I don't see it th
--- Simon Pepping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What Andreas argues here is what I would think as
> well: The LMs are
> tied to the formatting objects, not to the page
> regions they populate.
>
> Regards, Simon
>
I don't see it that way, because both an fo:flow and
an fo:static-content are han
What Andreas argues here is what I would think as well: The LMs are
tied to the formatting objects, not to the page regions they populate.
Regards, Simon
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 07:10:40PM +0200, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT
> -Original Message-
> From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Hi,
> I see two LM classes that appear misnamed, which can
> cause confusion as to their purpose:
>
> 1.) FlowLayoutManager is defined as "the layout
> manager for an fo:flow object" -- but actually it can
> also be for a
--- "J.Pietschmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glen Mazza wrote:
> > if the static
> > content is directed to the region-body of the
> page.
>
> Is this even allowed by the spec?
Actually yes! AFAICT you are welcome to set
the flow name on fo:static-content[1] to
"xsl-region-body" or any of th
J.Pietschmann wrote:
Glen Mazza wrote:
if the static
content is directed to the region-body of the page.
Is this even allowed by the spec?
No, this isnt valid.
2.) Similarly, the StaticContentLayoutManager should
be renamed to SideRegionLayoutManager, because the
output of both fo:static-content
Glen Mazza wrote:
if the static
content is directed to the region-body of the page.
Is this even allowed by the spec?
2.) Similarly, the StaticContentLayoutManager should
be renamed to SideRegionLayoutManager, because the
output of both fo:static-content and fo:flow can be
directed to it,
No, the
Team,
I see two LM classes that appear misnamed, which can
cause confusion as to their purpose:
1.) FlowLayoutManager is defined as "the layout
manager for an fo:flow object" -- but actually it can
also be for an fo:static-content object if the static
content is directed to the region-body of the
17 matches
Mail list logo
