Arved,
My apologies. I was just taking the opportunity to think aloud about aspects of the interaction between inline-areas and block-areas. Trying to make sense of the various elements of the spec leaves your ears buzzing. Peter Arved Sandstrom wrote: >>>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. >>> >>> >>> >>Agreed. In fact, it seems to me that the line-area is a pseudo-block >>designed to maintain the condition that the all of the children of an >>area must be of the same type, in the circumstance where there will >>clearly be block children of an fo:block, and to allow for simple block >>stacking in the BPDir. There is no need to wrap block areas in a >>line-area. >> >> > >On that last point let me clarify and point out that I never suggested that. >By definition a line area is a block area that contains only inline areas as >children. > >The quibble was over whether block areas returned/generated by by FO >children, and line areas that wrap inline areas returned/generated by FO >children, can/must/shouldn't co-exist in a single normal block area >generated by the top-level block FO. I was suggesting the "shouldn't" >viewpoint; Karen reads it differently. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
