Arved, Keiron et. al.

I guess logically it's true that the blocks nested in inlines should be
wrapped in inline areas, but it makes me nervous :-)
At least they cause line breaks, that much seems sure. I still think
that we should put pressure on the spec editors to either get rid of
structure or clarify it in the next version (ha, ha). If people need
blocks in inlines, they have inline-container.

In fact, I'd like to think that the possibility of including block-level
FOs in inline-level FOs is purely for convenience or "semantic nesting"
and should not really affect the area tree, except to cause line breaks
before and after the block areas.

The most legitimate use I can see for this kind of semantic nesting is
basic-link, because it could spread the link semantics over several
areas; kind of a link-wrapper.

-------------

For the record, I disagree with Arved's reading of Line-Building. I read
4.7.2, point 5 as saying that a block area generated by an fo:block can
contain a mixture of block areas and line areas.

Also, if we look at 4.7.3 (inline-building), I find it curious that it
starts by saying TWICE that an inline FO places inline areas and anchor
inline areas returned by its child FOs in inline areas which it
generates, and then suddenly throws a block-area into the condition
described in point 1. Looks more like a hasty copy/paste from the list
for Line-building!

As Keiron says, if the spec writers had been clearer, we wouldn't have
to spend hours chasing our tails like this!

Regards,
Karen

Arved Sandstrom wrote:
> 
[SNIP]
> 
> _If_ there were blocks nested inside the top-level block these would produce
> normal block areas that are single children of normal block areas produced
> by the top-level block. My reading of Line-Building is that normal block
> areas generated by a fo:block have either _single_ block areas _or_ one or
> more line areas as children, not a mixture.
> 
> Final comment: it is the close intermingling of inlines and blocks in this
> example that causes so much line breaking. Clearly each of the 2 nested
> blocks could be wrapped in inlines (fo:inline or whatever), and as a result
> everything in the example, in theory, could be in _one_ line area.
> 
> Anyhow, please critique away. :-)
> 
> Regards,
> Arved
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                         Name: complex_block.png
>    complex_block.png    Type: PNG Image (image/png)
>                     Encoding: base64
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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