On Sunday 22 July 2001 21:30, Karen Lease wrote:
> Welcome back Fotis!
> Oder soll ich sagen: Herr Doktor Jannidis? ;-)
> It looks like we need to update the "implemented" list too, at least
> when/before we do the next release, since lots of stuff has been
> happening lately.

We are on track for the monthly (first week of the month) release, I figure. 
So FOP 0.20.0 will be first week of August, immediately after Tore reformats, 
unless someone has objections.

> Redesign: personally, I haven't forgotten about it at all, but I've put
> it down temporarily while doing a bunch of table fixes and new
> functionality (spanning rows and vertical alignment - finally!) that
> seemed necessary to keep our user base working while the redesign goes
> on. I'm sure Keiron and Arved will have their words to put in, but it
> looks to me as though they've been working on a lot of "fundamentals" -
> adding properties and FOs - so that
> we can move closer towards compliance.

I am exactly in the same boat...couldn't ignore the fact that the existing 
FOP codebase needs lots of work. The redesign is all very good, but it is 
going to have to take second place as far as my time is concerned.

Speaking of stuff to do, Karen, I've got a request/question. You may or may 
not have seen that I have a request for clarification pending on the 
www-xsl-fo list concerning various aspects of markers - this has mostly to do 
with dotting i's and crossing t's. In the meantime I have been proceeding 
with a common-sense interpretation.

As of right now, a lot of fo:marker/fo:retrieve-marker more or less works. 
Not every FO that is allowed to have markers implements them yet, but 
fo:block does. Most of "retrieve-boundary" and "retrieve-position" also 
works. Now I need to go into testing mode, as well as for other stuff I've 
added, and finetune, but that's another story.

If you run some examples, you'll see that where fo:marker/fo:retrieve-marker 
currently is incorrect is that the properties on fo:marker are inherited from 
the original parent, not from the parent in the fo:static-content once the 
marker has been retrieved. In effect, markers are re-useable (I already have 
to reset them before each layout), and they have to be able to dynamically 
re-parent, sort of having a static parent for the purposes of retrieval, and 
a dynamic or _effective_ parent for the purposes of layout.

It is easy enough to figure out what the effective parent for layout is; my 
question is, since you are the properties guru, what is the most effective 
mechanism for re-initiating inheritance using this effective parent? This 
would have to be done every time a marker is used. I could work it out 
eventually, but I'm lazy. :-)

Thanks. Arved.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to