Arved Sandstrom wrote at 24 Feb 2003 08:01:40 -0400:
 > Comments below.
 > > -----Original Message-----
 > > From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 > > Sent: February 24, 2003 6:53 AM
 > > Subject: Re: markers in redesign
 > >
 > [ SNIP ]
 > > It seems to me that the "hierarchy" is not the same as the area tree or
 > > fo tree hierarchy.  It is a unique hierarchy constructed by applying the
 > > constraints on the qualifying areas.  The boundary conditions impose
 > > absolute constraints - violate one and you are out.  But the other
 > > conditions are not absolute, and they, along with actual page for
 > > multi-page boundaries, are used to construct the hierarchy.
 > Yes, that's my interpretation. Precisely so. It is tempting to confuse
 > "hierarchy" for "tree". But the language of the spec in regard of markers
 > defines a different hierarchy, one which happens to map closely to the area
 > tree, but is highly filtered.

It's not just areas.  fo:wrapper 'does not generate any areas', but
also 'may always have a sequence of zero or more fo:markers as its
initial children.'

 > The thing that bugs me is, when there is no qualifying area in the
 > "containing page" (Note to spec editors: try saying currently-formatted
 > page), after filtering, then it becomes anarchy. It seems like user

I wasn't there when the spec was written, but it seems to me that
'currently-formatted page' presupposes making pages on the fly and
doesn't quite describe pages that are unbounded in one or both
directions (i.e. where there is only ever one page) and also doesn't
describe the possible processing model of making all the pages from
the fo:flow and then going back and fixing up the static content.


Tony Graham
XML Technology Center - Dublin
Sun Microsystems Ireland Ltd                       Phone: +353 1 8199708
Hamilton House, East Point Business Park, Dublin 3            x(70)19708

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

Reply via email to