--- Comment #24 from Andreas L. Delmelle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-05-05 
07:15:17 PST ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Thank you for all your comments and additions, Andreas!
> It's good to be back after quite a long time (enough to forget the good old
> habit of using JUnit!)

:-) No problem. That's why it's A Good Thing that there's more of us.

> > (In reply to comment #21)
> > > The problem with getLengthBase() seems to point to a difficulty with
> > > property-inheritance: strictly speaking, the footnote should inherit the
> > > computed value for start-indent(), 
> > 
> > Sorry, I obviously meant "end-indent".
> What I still cannot understand is why there is no such problem with
> start-indent = "body-start", which is resolved ok ...

They are implemented differently: see
and .LabelEndFunction. label-end() makes explicit use of a percentage,
body-start() does not...

It is only that percentage which causes the error. For 'normal' list-item-label
descendants, the base-length is found by climbing up the LM tree until the
corresponding LM is found. That's what happens in
Come to think of it, maybe a way to avoid the warning would be to reimplement
getBaseLength() in FootnoteBodyLM, to do something else than try out all
ancestors... (long shot)

> > Right, my first instinct would be to include footnotes for the table-header
> > only on the first page that is spanned by the table, and for the 
> > table-footer
> > only on the last page.
> It's an interesting idea, and probably the easiest to implement.
> Personally, I would have placed them all in the first page spanned by the
> table, although this would be a bit more problematic in terms of relative 
> order
> between the footnotes. 

Yours is probably the better idea... Since the footer can appear on the first
page, it would indeed be confusing to have its footnote appear maybe 10 pages
after the citation first appears.

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.

Reply via email to