Hi Andreas,
> Author: adelmelle
> Date: Thu Dec 13 06:43:08 2007
> New Revision: 603926
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=603926&view=rev
> Log:
> Minor tweaks:
> * only add text to a fo:wrapper if it is not a direct flow-descendant
> * error if an fo:wrapper that is a direct flow-descendant contains
> inline-level children
>
> Modified:
> xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/fo/flow/Wrapper.java
>
> + /* Check if the fo:wrapper is a child of an fo:flow or
> fo:static-content
> + * (or a descendant in nested fo:wrapper sequence, the first of which
> + * is a child of an fo:flow or fo:static-content */
> + FONode ancestor = this.parent;
> + while (!(ancestor instanceof Flow)
> + && ancestor instanceof Wrapper) {
Might be wrong, but isn’t that the very same as:
while (!(ancestor instanceof Wrapper))
?
<snip/>
> protected void validateChildNode(Locator loc, String nsURI,
> String localName) throws ValidationException {
> @@ -58,9 +74,30 @@
> "(#PCDATA|%inline;|%block;)");
> }
> } else if (isBlockOrInlineItem(nsURI, localName)) {
> + if (isFlowChild
> + && isInlineItem(nsURI, localName)
> + && !isNeutralItem(nsURI, localName)) {
> + invalidChildError(loc, nsURI, localName,
> + "fo:" + localName + " not allowed as child of an
> fo:wrapper "
> + + "that is a child of an fo:flow or
> fo:static-content");
> + }
> blockOrInlineItemFound = true;
> } else {
> invalidChildError(loc, nsURI, localName);
And regarding the validation, wouldn’t it be safer to call the
validateChildNode of the nearest non-wrapper ancestor? That way this
class would really keep neutral, and we wouldn’t have to worry about the
implementation of new FO elements.
My 2 cents,
Vincent
--
Vincent Hennebert Anyware Technologies
http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert http://www.anyware-tech.com
Apache FOP Committer FOP Development/Consulting
