Oops, make that three differences: their content models (child FO's that the spec says they can have) are slightly different.
Glen --- Glen Mazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- The Web Maestro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > or something. That way, it's all in one (since it > > can apparently be > > repurposed anyway, with fo:flow being stuck into > > fo:static-content, and > > Be careful here: fo:flow being placed into a "side > region", or fo:static-content being placed into the > "body region" (or main reference area). We really > need to start divorcing the > fo:static-content/fo:flow > terms from where they are usually placed on the > paper. > > The two differences between fo:flow and > fo:static-content are: > > 1. fo:static-content is to be repeated from its > start > on every page, and truncated if it doesn't fit. > > 2. fo:flow is not repeated, but additional pages > created until it its contents are finished. > > Regions of that these FO's are placed on are really > not part of the equation. > > Glen > >
