Comments intermingled.Default reference orientation and lr-tb writing mode

> -----Original Message-----
> From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: May 5, 2002 1:34 PM
> To: fop dev
> Subject: Border properties
> Hello,
> I tried to make something out of bug 684. Again, after
> reading the spec in depth, I'm nearly biting pieces off
> my keyboard.
> In the examples, the left edge of the table
> content rectangle is the same as the edge of the reference
> area, and left border (should I use "start edge border"?)
> is tacked on so that it extends outside the reference area.

What it really boils down to is, the start-indent and end-indent are
content-rectangle to content-rectangle distances. If the start-indent is
zero then borders and padding and space are outside the content rectangle of
the reference area. Similarly for end-indent.

> The upper and lower border, however, do not overlap previous
> or following blocks, as expected.

I would not expect this - see below. At least not with initial values.

> Well 4.4.1 says
>   the start-edge of its allocation-rectangle ... offset from it
>   inward by a distance equal to the block-area's start-indent
>   plus its start-intrusion-adjustment (as defined below)
>   minus its border-start, padding-start, and space-start values...
> given that the start-indent of the tables are zero (hopefully),
> the behaviour regarding the border extending left beyond the
> edge of the refernce area appears to be consistent with the spec,
> albeit IMO a bit counter-intuitive, because not consistent with
> what happens in BPD.

The treatment is different; there is no BPD counterpart to start-indent and
end-indent. The separation between content-rectangles is determined by
padding+border+space (before & after).

Borders and padding are <length-conditional> values so unless they are at
the leading or trailing edge of a reference area they will definitely have
the specified <length>. None of them are negative. The spaces _can_ be
negative so this is the sole mechanism by which areas (including borders &
padding) can overlap (and space-specifier resolution is involved of course).

> Now, what is the problem bug 684 complains about? Does it mean
> the border in BPD should be handled similarly to what happens in
> IPD? Or does he mean something else?
> And, of course: is my understanding on how borders/padding should
> be handled resonable? I feel very confused.

Join the club. :-) I constantly remind myself of what the definitions really
mean in simple language. I also try to minimize use of allocation
rectangles - I understand the concept but find it confusing.

> BTW what happens if both start-indent and margin-start were
> defined on the same block area?

margin-* properties are absolute only (top, bottom, left, right). In any
case, according to 5.3.2 and 5.3.1 the absolute properties take precedence.
margin-left if explicitly specified has priority over start-indent.

I took a quick look at (the FO) and I think this will probably help
out. I have to admit if there is one area of the spec that I am not
particularly familiar with it is tables - in this case I don't think there
is any weirdness involved stemming from table border properties.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to