DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG 
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25803>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND 
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25803

[PATCH] PropertyList: Fixes to convertAttributeToProperty and findBaseProperty





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2003-12-30 23:51 -------
Simon,

I think I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure your code is the 
solution.  If, as you state, FOP can freely ignore leader-length="120pt" in (a) 
below, then what you are saying is:

(a) <fo:leader leader-length.maximum="200pt" leader-length="120pt"/> 

is the same fo:leader as:
(b) <fo:leader leader-length.maximum="200pt" leader-length="140pt"/> 

and is the same fo:leader as:
(c) <fo:leader leader-length.maximum="200pt" leader-length="160pt"/> 

and is the same fo:leader as:
(d) <fo:leader leader-length.maximum="200pt" leader-length="80pt"/> 

etc., etc.--because, after all, I'm ignoring leader-length from processing.

But according to the Section 5.11, Property Datatypes [1] of the spec, though, 
a declaration of (a) would cause this property population of fo:leader:

leader-length.minimum = 120pt
leader-length.maximum = 200pt
leader-length.optimum = 120pt

while a declaration of (b) would be

leader-length.minimum = 140pt
leader-length.maximum = 200pt
leader-length.optimum = 140pt,

correct?  So I can't just ignore leader-length if leader-length.maximum was 
already created, because that 120pt, 140pt, 160pt., etc. value will never fill 
the unspecified components, correct?  Unless I'm missing something, we may need 
another solution to this problem.

Thanks very much!
Glen

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xsl-20011015/slice5.html#section-N8794-
Property-Datatypes

Reply via email to