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