Cyriaque Dupoirieux wrote:
...
> I think that's because we talked about type="span" and type="div" which
> are well known for XHTML writer.
> We might have talked about type="inline" and type="block" but it would
> have been a little bit <fo> oriented :-) .
Which actually is interesting.
> Maybe we should find others words to clearly means that we are not
> systematically going to produce XHTML or FO or IDon'tKnowWhat.
>
> The concepts of div and span in XHTML can be respectively assimilated to
> block and inline in <fo>.
>
> Maybe something like type="layer" - for div, block and type="flow" for
> span or inline ...
Too late, you already said it! I prefer type="inline" and type="block"
:-P :-)
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
