On Nov 13, 2005, at 16:14, Andreas L Delmelle wrote:

So, the values of these properties need to be changed to reflect the reference-orientation specified on the block-container in question...


FWIW: tried to change these, but I'm still getting warnings... No idea yet on how to proceed next.

Been playing around some more with this example, and one of the warnings is caused by the block-container that has default reference- orientation, so there definitely seems to be something buggy in the interpretation of absolute coordinates. It seems they are interpreted relative to each other (? remote guess).

Example:
For a nominal available height of 742000mpt, the maximum value of "bottom" may at most be "342pt" according to the current implementation.
342pt = 742pt (available) - 400pt (value for top)

I'm still not sure. Does this mean that currently, the b-c is considered to be its own containing block?

Cheers,

Andreas

Reply via email to