W. Eliot Kimber wrote:
Eliot,Oleg Tkachenko wrote:Peter B. West wrote:I have debugging my FO tree building be running it against various example fo files. Of the three I have used so far, I have found problems with two.
./docs/examples/pagination/allregions.fo has the problem that I mentioned in an earlier past; the simple-page-master does not have region-body as the first region specified.
Hmmm, allregions.fo looks okay to me. Probably this stuff is also in tables/background.fo, this one really have
btw, neither antenna nor XEP don't complain on it.
The FO spec is clear that the content is a sequence group. However, semantically, there's no point in constraining the order of occurrence in this case as there is no interdependenc of the elements. I'm sure that if XML had AND connectors the editors would have used them. Since there can be no practical failure that would result from a different order of region declarations, I think it's appropriate to not enforce the content model.
In fact, I did a quick survey of all the formatting objects and this is the only case in which a sequence group is used where the order does not have some obvious purpose (e.g., putting declarations before uses).
While any implementation would be free to complain if the order were not followed, I would consider that to be a "Simon Says" behavior--that is, complaining about something that could either be recovered from without risk or that cannot possibly hurt anything in the first place. I'm not sure how culturally distributed the childs' game of Simon Says is, but the basic idea is that one child gives orders and the other performs them IFF the first child says "Simon Says", as in "Simon says touch your nose" or "touch your nose" (if the orderee complies, the first child says iperiously "I didn't say Simon Says") (at least I think that's how it's played--it's been a long time since I played it and I have no children at hand to remind me of the details). In any case, I consider Simon Says behavior to be one of the more heinous sins of software implementation. It's especially prevelant in the implementation of standards, as one might expect.
On the other hand, unrestrained recovery and fallback can lead to its own problems, as we learned from HTML. For example, I've found XSL Formatter's almost total lack of validation of FO instances to be counter productive in the long run if one is not checking their FO markup, either with XEP or by inspection against the spec. Fortunately, RenderX provides their validator as service to the community, so there's no excuse for anyone producing FO instances that don't at least conform to the rules XEP validates.
I'm not sure how to proceed. The war-cry of workers on the X-web is surely, "Remember HTML!" The argument for a new content model for simple-page-master is cogent, and I'm sure that the editors will listen to it. (How the result will be expressed is a different matter. How *do* you express it?)
In the meantime, the spec is plain on this point, so why not follow it? There are plenty of points on which the spec is not plain, and on the which the quickest way forward is a straw poll of implementations. Although I haven't tried it, I assume from what has been said that the XEP validator allows FO which is simply non-conformant in this respect. That seems a good reason not to rely on it.
Taking ad hoc decisions about variations to the spec can generate unexpected problems. E.g., an implementor deciding to loosen the s-p-m model might easily find himself (or herself - just paying my feminism tax) cycling through the children of s-p-m, handling multiples by silently overriding the earlier occurrences. That might not be a decision everyone would make, but in extra-spec territory, anything is possible. Some users eventually discover this behaviour when they realise the reason for small errors in their documents, and complain that the processor did not pick up the duplications, which, in their case, were meant to be something else. So the authors change the behaviour, whereupon a number of other users complain that their (non-conforming but working) documents are now broken.
Better to get the spec changed, I think. "Simon Says" is best played in a group, where the non-conforming players stand out like sore thumbs, so nothing has to be said, although it usually is. Eliot, I was *never* imperious. Cross my heart.
Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/
"Lord, to whom shall we go?"
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]