You are asking a lot of questions. To most I have no answer, but I
have one reservation.

On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 01:41:05AM +0200, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
> The other ones I encountered so far: implicit columns (from cells in 
> first row), column-number and number-columns-repeated.
> Especially the second seems out of place in layout, since it is needed 
> by the (currently unimplemented) function from-table-column(). If the 
> column-numbering is deferred until layout, it seems to become all the 
> more difficult to provide an eventual implementation for this function. 
> The other two are closely related to this, since they are necessary to 
> get the column-numbers right.
> This kind of on-the-fly normalization of the tree structure has 
> advantages for layout in that the table-grid co-ordinates will be 
> readily available (no interpretation needed, just pick up the cells as 
> building-blocks and map them onto the grid without too much effort). 
> The only downside is that certain information is lost. The tree 
> structure won't be the structure as specified in the source document, 
> but will actually correspond to another structure that yields exactly 
> the same results.

This bothers me. It may hinder proper calculation of property value
inheritance, which follows the tree as given by the user. We do
property refinement on the tree; other than that it is a precise
reflection of the user's fo document. I am reluctant to change that. 

Regards, Simon

Simon Pepping
home page:

Reply via email to