On Sep 15, 2005, at 13:50, Jeremias Maerki wrote:

<snip />
 But it should be clear that an explicitely defined property should
override the default on the other corresponding property.

Hmmm... 'should be clear'? No offence, but that is interpretation, not fact.

The term 'corresponding property' is clearly non-applicable here. Corresponding properties, as defined in the Rec, refer to properties of *one and the same* formatting object (i.e. one and the same table-cell).

Fact: at the time the tree is constructed, when one cell is added, you don't know yet whether the next cell will have starts-row="true", so you *have to* assume "ends-row" will receive its initial value, which is "false".
(IOW: It *is* clear that to assume otherwise would be an error )

If ends-row on the first cell and starts-row on the second cell were explicitely
defined like in your example, this would indeed be an error,

Here's where our interpretations differ the most, I guess. I see the initial values as replacements for non-specified values --in the sense that if a value is non-specified, any implementation should at least be able to depend on the property having the initial value. Also, initial values are a convenience for the end-user, in that the user doesn't need to specify explicit values if he/she is satisfied with the default.

...it's a contradiction by the user. We probably need to look at these
properties like corresponding properties.

Again: 'probably'? Interpretation, not fact.

And we probably need to do
some kind of over-constrained relaxing giving "true" values the higher
priority. It would be bad IMO to force users to properly specify the
proper ends-row property whenever they use starts-row.

Why "bad"? At most, a minor inconvenience if one expects a processor to be forgiving WRT one's own absurdities (whether implicit or explicit) :-)
At the very least, it would do away with any possible ambiguity...

I'd be very interested to know what the competition (XEP/AntennaHouse) does in these cases. Will have a look later on.

I think the spec is simply not 100% unambiguous in the description.

At least we agree on that :-)



Reply via email to