J.Pietschmann wrote:
Arved Sandstrom wrote:

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
preferences based on "retrieve-position" lose all relevance. In other words,
there is an elaborate set of definitions based on the current page, with a
hierarchy defined by "retrieve-position", but as soon as one establishes
that there is no such qualifying area on the current page, than it's just
the first qualifying area one can find, moving back in the document.

Exactly. All definitions regarding retrieve-position exclusively
refer to the "current page". There is not a single word on what should
happen if there is no matching marker on the current page but several
on the previous page which are eligible. FOP picks the last, but there
is absolutely nothing in the spec which backs this, and I searched
thoroughly last weekend.

It's a worry. I think the decision is a sensible extrapolation from the fact that, where pages are concerned, nearer is better. However, it is clearly an oversight by the editors. Has anyone written to them on this point?

BTW for the page sequence retrieving scope there is a "current page
sequence" casually mentioned but definition of the term is left to
imagination, in contrast to the meticulous definition of "current page".

Additionally, some oddball examples for discussion and fun:

   <fo:marker marker-class-name="foo"/>stuff</fo:block>
   <fo:marker marker-class-name="foo"/>stuff

Which one is the last?

Because the relevant context is the area tree, I would think that the footnote would be the last.

Similarly for <fo:block-container position="absolute" top="10cm" left="0cm" width="5cm" height="5cm> <fo:marker marker-class-name="foo"/><fo:block>stuff<fo:block> </fo:block-container> <fo:block-container position="absolute" top="0cm" left="0cm" width="5cm" height="5cm> <fo:marker marker-class-name="foo"/><fo:block>stuff<fo:block> </fo:block-container>

This one is trickier. It seems to me that the fact that out-of-line areas are defined to have no impact on the layout of normal areas might imply that such areas occupy a position in the area tree which is independent of their eventual position on the page. That aspect is determined by the particular positioning properties of the fo, independently of the normal layout flow. In that case, it would be tempting to assume that such areas are regarded as occurring in the area tree at the point of their definition.

If so, then, even though the second area with "top" of 0cm will precede the first on the page, it follows the first in the area tree. This interpretation would help with the case in which the markers are defined in both absolutely positioned and normal areas.

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]

Reply via email to