> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glen Mazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


> 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...



Reply via email to