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
