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:
> 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.
> 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
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin)
> iD8DBQFC630myHTbFO9b8aARArkpAJ94BITEvZauAi+oMfRSpStvUPKTywCcCGgG
> mMQvEojfDcJndutFEQtZatA=
> =3Rdr

Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to