Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
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 :-)
+1 to inline and block, they seem far more desriptive than div and span,
and are certainly more generic (yes they have fo connotations, but they
are common in publishing circles in general)
Ross
