<linearea bpd="11100" space-before="1650" space-after="1650">
  <inlinearea bpd="9250">
    <textarea font-size="10pt">some 10pt text</textarea>
    <inlinearea bpd="11100">
      <textarea font-size="12pt">some 12pt text</textarea>
    </inlinearea>
    <textarea font-size="10pt">more 10pt text</textarea>
  </inlinearea>
<linearea>

All the inline areas also have a line-height trait of 12000 but that
is only used when lls="line-height" [4.6].

[Manuel]

Hmm, the line-height property would be "normal" everywhere which equates to "1.2" that means the trait would be "14400" for areas generated from fo elements with a font-size of "12pt" and "12000" for areas generated from fo elements with a font-size of "10pt". But as you said it doesn't matter really unless lss is "line-height".

Your are right, my mistake. I believe the line-height trait should be 14400 for all the inline areas.

Does it make sense?

Yes it does. Does it also means the bpd doesn't "bubble up" in the case of nested inlines? So if we expand on the example of the nested inline above:

<fo:block><fo:inline font-size=10pt">some 10pt text<fo:inline
font-size="14pt">some 14 pt text</fo:inline>more 10pt
text</fo:inline></fo:block>

Does the line-area generated from that have a bpd corresponding to a 12pt font or 14 pt font (spec [4.5] for lss="max-height": "block-progression-direction is the minimum required to enclose both the nominal-requested-line-rectangle and the allocation-rectangles of all the inline-areas stacked within the line-area")?

I believe the bpd of the line area will correspond to the 14pt font because [4.5] talks about "all the inline-areas".

So the bpd on inlines does not bubble up the outer inlines, but it (and/or depth & altitude) do bubble up to the calculation of line-rectangles on the line-area.

Also, I think that makes sense.

The nominal-requested-line-rectangle corresponds to a 12pt font. But is the area generated from the nested inline an "inline-area stacked within the line-area" or not?

Stacked inline-areas must refer to all the desendents, not just the immediate children, see [4.6.1].

regards,
finn

Reply via email to