Hmm, interesting question. I'll try to get my head back into properties
and think about it within the next couple of days.


Arved Sandstrom wrote:

> 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]

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

Reply via email to