You're right -- technically either way FOP shouldn't have to allow for this invalid condition. But, as you originally stated "We already allow table-bodies without child-nodes if strict validation is turned off, so might as well add this. Not too much harm, I guess." It seems to me to fall under the "non-strict validation" umbrella.
I'll submit this via the submission process and see what happens. Gary Reed Horizon Anatomic Pathology Development McKesson Provider Technologies 541.681.8265 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. -----Original Message----- From: Andreas L Delmelle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 4:08 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: confirm subscribe to [email protected] On Aug 16, 2006, at 00:49, Reed, Gary wrote: > Thanks Andreas. > > It's not a problem with the style sheet. MS Word creates the empty > list. Yes it is :) If it is producing list-item-labels without content --at least an empty block would suffice-- then the stylesheet should be altered. It is resulting in FO that does not adhere to the rules in the XSL-FO Rec, so it would be more reasonable to change the stylesheet. Either it should create an 'empty' list-item, with both label and body at least containing an empty block, or it should not create a list-item at all. > Following is Microsoft's description of the listpr element. It doesn't > explicitly address empty lists. Therefore, I think my proposed > modification is reasonable. I'll read up on the FOP website about how > to submit code changes for consideration and see what happens. Hmm... We already allow table-bodies without child-nodes if strict validation is turned off, so might as well add this. Not too much harm, I guess. But again, strictly speaking, it's the stylesheet that is in error here and should be fixed. Cheers, Andreas
