> -----Original Message----- > From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Hi, > I see two LM classes that appear misnamed, which can > cause confusion as to their purpose: > > 1.) FlowLayoutManager is defined as "the layout > manager for an fo:flow object" -- but actually it can > also be for an fo:static-content object if the static > content is directed to the region-body of the page. So, IIC you're considering the FlowLM or StaticContentLM as being unrelated to the fo:flow or fo:static-content objects --or at least: more related to the page-regions than to the formatting objects? Agreed that, according to the XSL Spec. --WD or not--, it's allowed to redirect the fo:static-content (for example) to a different region than 'before' or 'after', but it could be argued that another option is to let the StaticContentLM take care of the redirection of the fo:static-content to the right region... I suppose the current StaticContentLM should already allow for redirection to either 'xsl-region-before' or 'xsl-region-after', so it should be quite straightforward to add 'xsl-region-body' as another alternative (?) After all, there is a key difference between Flow and StaticContent when considering markers: the first one can contain fo:markers, while the second one can only retrieve them... One aspect that *does* seem to become increasingly important is the inter-play of the StaticContentLM and the FlowLM --if both can layout to the same region(s). IMO there is no solid argument against the *reason* itself for this renaming --on the contrary, it seems more than reasonable--, but regardless of its validity, I do have my doubts on the end-result of the proposed way to solve the related issues... Cheers, Andreas
