> -----Original Message-----
> From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<snip />
> Ah well, I overlooked this....

And it's easy to overlook. The spec-layout is quite misleading, putting this
XSL-addition in the place it is now... If you're reading diagonally, it
looks more like an insignificant note.

<snip />
> Uh no, it's more ugly: line-height is actually meant to be
> a "compound" property, like space-before. I.e. it is possible
> to write
>   <fo:block line-height.optimum="12.5pt" line-heigth.maximum="13pt"
>   ...

Yup, suspected _something_ like this. I wanted to add the little phrasing:
'to make the party complete' ;)

> The precedence and conditionality are combination of the
> half-leading with space-before and space-after at the beginning
> and the end of the block, I think.

Sounds like the correct interpretation, only that it's expressed more
generally 'above the first ... or after the last ... placed in a reference
area' --comes down to the same thing, in this case.

> I see why they thought this is necessary, but this kind of spec
> makes it unnecessary hard to follow.

Hmmm.. I do agree that first making it look like line-height is a simple
property, and then adding a little extension to the definition, making it
exactly the opposite --that's definitely not the way to go. The definition
should be revised here, if you ask me...

Bottom-line is that line-height is supposed to be treated as a compound
property, for which the subfields are defaulted to values according to the
definition in the spec when it is used as a simple property.



Reply via email to