--- Simon Pepping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What Andreas argues here is what I would think as > well: The LMs are > tied to the formatting objects, not to the page > regions they populate. > > Regards, Simon >
I don't see it that way, because both an fo:flow and an fo:static-content are handled equivalently when sent to a SideRegion, and both are handled equivalently when sent to the BodyRegion. SideRegionLM handles the layout of input into a region-reference-area that does not have spans (and therefore columns/normal-flow-reference-areas, column-balancing, etc.) It does the same thing regardless of the input coming from an fo:flow or an fo:static-content. NormalFlowLM handles the layout of input into multi-column/multi-span areas of a region-body. It does the same thing regardless of the input coming from an fo:flow or an fo:static-content. [I am unsure, however, whether NormalFlowLM is to handle just one normal flow (column), all the normal-flows of the span, or all the spans of the body-region, it may turn out that renaming it SpanLM or RegionBodyLM may make more sense. Now that I think about it, RegionBodyLM ATM probably makes the most amount of sense.] The routing that Andreas mentions is already handled by PSLM, which also makes sure that additional pages are created to satisfy fo:flows, and that fo:static-contents are duplicated on each page. This routing is really the flow-map (implicit in 1.0, explicit in 1.1) which is the directing of flows (fo:static-content or fo:flow) on one side to (multiple) regions (SideRegionLM and/or RegionBodyLM, as appropriate) on the other. Glen
