> -----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. Cheers, Andreas
