At 01:46 AM 7/28/01 +1000, Peter B. West wrote:
>Arved & Karen,
>
>On the surface of it, this re-parenting issue looks like a tree 
>operation.  The point of definition of the marker remains in its context 
>at the point of definition.  When a retrieve-marker is found, the marker 
>sub-tree is attached as a child of the retrieve-marker.  As long as 
>there is a check for cycles, there s no reason that a sub-tree cannot be 
>attached at multiple points in the tree.  There are probably a few 
>complications in terms of removal, but I have yet to work through all of 
>these issues anyway.

In fact, you're right, this would be much better. Rather than change the 
parent of the original, just create a temporary copy that gets attached as a 
child of the fo:retrieve-marker. Because the original should stay where it 
is for future marker operations. In any case the code does not permit the 
original to be laid-out, so there is no problem leaving the fo:marker there.

Regards,
Arved

Fairly Senior Software Type
e-plicity (http://www.e-plicity.com)
Wireless * B2B * J2EE * XML --- Halifax, Nova Scotia


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

Reply via email to