Hi Luca:

--- Luca Furini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Glen Mazza wrote:
> 
> > Hi Luca,
> >
> > 1.)  Can the corresponding setting of these values
> on
> > fo:root (642-643 of [1]) in PSLM now be removed? 
> (I
> > think so...because what is set on fo:flow will be
> used
> > instead of fo:root.)
> 
> I agree with you.
> 
> The method LengthBase.getBaseLength() (which is
> called by
> PercentLength.getNumericValue(), called by NumericOp
> methods, called for
> examply by LabelEndFunction.eval()) searches the
> nearest FObj ancestor,
> and fo:flow will always be nearer than fo:root.
> 

Excellent!  I'm very much looking forward to removing
those lines of code from PSLM tonight (after I get
something in SCLM below)--we'll be moving from a
hopelessly bloated 660 LOC to a nicely trim and svelte
655.


> > 2.)  Also, does your change below need to be added
> to
> > StaticContentLayoutManager as well?
> 
> I think so, even if I see that before the branch the
> StaticContentLM did
> not have these lines (while FlowLM had them).
> 
> I did not try and look what happens setting layout
> dimensions in the
> StaticContentLM, as at the moment I still have some
> things to do
> concerning lists; but I could add this to my to-do
> list.
> 

Don't bother--I'll take a look at it and if I need
your IQ I'll let you know.  At worst, I can just put
placeholder values in, seeing that what SCLM currently
relies on from PSLM for these values--page
dimensions--is incorrect anyway.

Thanks,
Glen

Reply via email to