Thanks for looking it up. I've put it on the todo list on the Wiki so it doesn't get forgotten. It's low priority anyway. It's probably a good exercise for someone who wants to get into how the FO tree works.
On 30.07.2005 15:14:04 Andreas L Delmelle wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Jul 30, 2005, at 11:51, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > D'oh, right. :-) Lucky me. > > > > Too bad, we don't generate validation warnings for misplaced > > non-inherited properties. Didn't we have that discussion already this > > year? I can't find it or am I imagining it? > > I also remember this being mentioned... Yep, found it. A thread from > about a month ago. > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=fop-dev&m=111962589510266&w=2 > > As Glen indicated, the XSL-FO Rec starts off by allowing any property > on any object, but further on, it does state that for every class of > objects there is a specific set of applicable properties. > > Thinking of ideas on implementing such checks... Currently, I don't > think we already have a mapping of these object->applicable_props > anywhere, and maybe we don't even need such a map. Since the > PropertyList is a temporary list anyway, whose individual properties > get bound to member variables of the respective objects, is it safe to > say that the FObj subclass' member variables --or at least a subset-- > corresponds to the set of applicable properties? > > If that is true, what we're looking for seems to be a possibility to > check whether the list contains any unbound properties after the call > to --or ending-- FObj.bind(). > > Shouldn't cost too much, I think. > > Cheers, > > Andreas > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) > > iD8DBQFC630myHTbFO9b8aARArkpAJ94BITEvZauAi+oMfRSpStvUPKTywCcCGgG > mMQvEojfDcJndutFEQtZatA= > =3Rdr > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Jeremias Maerki
