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
