Hey gang,

There are two issues I'd like to discuss. They come from feedback from

The first concerns indent inheritance which I documented in [1]. It
turns out that most commercial implementations decided to deliberately
break indent inheritance to work around the expectations of
inexperienced XSL-FO users. This obviously breaks the specification and
it creates an interoperability issue. This becomes an issue, especially
since I know a few companies that would like switch from commercial
implementations back to Apache FOP now that it's "more usable" now. I've
asked the XSL WG in [2] on their updated opinion about the issue. There
are arguments in both directions.

So what I'd like to do is implement the alternative behaviour as a
configurable option in the FO tree. The default would still be what the
specification describes (see [1]), but users would be able to set a
switch that would make FOP reset start-indent and end-indent to zero in
cases where in the area tree a reference area boundary would be crossed
(block-containers and table-cell, mainly).

[1] http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/IndentInheritance
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xsl-editors/2005OctDec/0024.html

The second issue is about the collapsing border model. Currently, having
an fo:table with no explicit border-collapse="separate" results in a
warning message in the log as well as frequent exceptions due to the
fact that this border model not completely implemented. I would like to
modify the FO tree in a way that a table always reports being in
separate border model mode. The other idea would have been to change the
default but I don't particularly like that approach because it breaks
the spec. Obviously, this is only a temporary measure until the
collapsing border model becomes usable. I was recently thinking about
doing a scaled-down implementation which ignores the tricky interactions
between headers/footers and the table-body. But my priorities here are
not particularly high, so it might be some time until I get to this.

Any objections? Comments?

Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to