Arved, I agree that there is no need to tie the rendering to any particular model, as long as the results are equivalent. The discussions that span this list and the Xslfo-proc-devel list testify that there are many approaches to process of layout. However, if I am reading this correctly, the proposal is to clarify the text of the spec. In that context, the treatment of the area tree and its relationship to the fo tree must be coherent and consistent, or we will be in even deeper difficulties.
Peter Arved Sandstrom wrote: >> 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. >> >[ SNIP ] > >With respect to the second sentence of the above, I think we should be very >clear at all times about exactly which area tree we are talking about - the >conceptual area tree as described in the spec, or the real one constructed >by Fop. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
