On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 08:14:35PM +0100, Andreas L. Delmelle wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > Hi, > > My very first thought was a) too, but then again, I'm still wondering what > the intention is of allowing this sort of block-inline-block nesting in the > first place. > I'm unsure what the difference *should* be between the above and the case > where the inner block is *not* nested inside an fo:inline...
Not much I think. An inline in a block is usually used to specify different properties for its content. > Since it is allowed by the spec: what is the intended effect of having a > block/list-block/table nested inside an inline? > > Maybe something like this makes it clearer: > <fo:block font-size="40pt"> > A > <fo:inline font-size="6pt"> > <fo:block> > <!-- add a long text here --> > </fo:block> > </fo:inline> > B > </fo:block> > > which is then supposed to be rendered as two very large letters 'A' and 'B' > with, for example, a story in very small letters in between. (Although one > could argue that a similar effect can be achieved by a three column table > where the first and third column contain the two large letters, and the > second column contains the story...) I do not think that is the correct layout. It should be a large A on a line, followed by any text with which the inline would start (none in your example). Then the block would have its own full text width block area. Then there would be more lines with the ending text of the inline (none in your example) and a large B. The layout you describe can be achieved using an inline-container, I believe. > If this was the intention, then the proposed 'handing off the BlockLM to the > ancestor BlockLM' wouldn't work... :-( There may well be several ways in which the user can specify a certain layout. Regards, Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
