Keiron et al., Just a quick reaction to this - I'm off to sit next to the footpath reading the newspapers and drinking tea.
From what I see here you are changing the shape of the tree. The motivation seems to be to make it explicit that block areas contained within an inline area must bubble up to become direct children of the containing block area. I can't see that that is feasible, given the basic design principle of the spec that the area tree follows the fo tree. Specifically, by doing that, you lose what Karen called, iirc, the semantic markers of the enclosing inline-area, e.g., fo:inline or fo:basic-link. So how does that semantic information get to the once-but-no-longer enclosed fo:block? It is possible to arrange the transfer of such information to the block-area in the area tree, but then the inheritance becomes a purely algorithmic thing, and the structural link between the fo tree and the area tree is broken. It seems to me that one reason for the murkiness in this area of the spec is that the authors are at pains to preserve this structural relationship, while at the same time ensuring that the actual layout is determined in the way you propose. I think that it's possible to do this by clarifying the particular issues about line-building and inline-building in this context. The bottom line is that I think we have to clarify the text so that it comprehensibly expresses the situation laid out in Arved's original diagram of the handling of the fo:block within an fo:basic-link within the text of an fo:block. Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
