Ok, let me then explicitely state that my previous mail contained my own
interpretation and no facts. IMO there are certain gaps and inaccuracies
in the spec and I tried to take my own expectations and create an
interpretation that makes sense. Let me just say that I would really,
really hate to receive an error message because I didn't specify an
ends-row="true" on the cell preceding the one I specified a
starts-row="true" on.

On 15.09.2005 15:51:47 Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
> 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 :-)
> Cheers,
> Andreas

Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to