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.


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
>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
>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]

Reply via email to