On 06.02.2009 23:29:13 Andreas Delmelle wrote:
> On 06 Feb 2009, at 08:19, Apache Wiki wrote:
>
> Hi Jost, Jeremias
>
> > '''(R3)''' Decide how the language should be defined. Other
> > implementations specify the @xml:lang on fo:root level. The same
> > attribute is set for descendant's to override the default language.
> > There is also the common FO property {{{country}}} and
> > {{{language}}} to consider.
> >
> > + * [JM] XSL defines {{{xml:lang}}} as a shorthand for
> > {{{country}}}/{{{language}}}/{{{script}}}. So both are equivalent
> > from a user's perspective. It should be verified that {{{xml:lang}}}
> > is properly mapped to the other three properties. Internally, the
> > code should work off the basic XSL properties, not the shorthand.
>
> FWIW: I think I have made sure at one point that the mapping of
> xml:lang to country/language should work (see a.o.
> org.apache.fop.fo.properties.XMLLangShorthandParser). The mapping to
> 'script' is not yet implemented.
> Very basically, however, since there is no validation whatsoever at
> parse-time of whether the specified value conforms to the ISO
> specification.
> I see the possibility of adding this, and it doesn't even seem too
> complicated.
I remember you working on this some time ago. I just made a note to
recheck because accessibility relies on it. However, I don't think
supporting "script" is high on the priority list given the restricted
capabilities of FOP concerning eastern scripts.
> Note that none of those properties apply to fo:root, so we'll probably
> have to assume that the natural language of the document is the one of
> the first fo:page-sequence.
Agreed.
> In theory, we always have access to the
> specified value on fo:root,
...if the user bothered to specify it there...
> but accessing that from the renderer
> context may get a bit messy (it exists only in the
> 'currentPropertyList' that is available in FOTreeBuilder)
We can always expose the values from org.apache.fop.fo.pagination.Root
(by adding property variable and adjusting bind()). Not messy at all I
would think. But that would be a proprietary extension.
If possible I think we should stick to the above rule: Use the first
page-sequence for the document language. That should cover 99% of the
cases and follows the spec as I understand it. And if anyone needs a
different document-level language, we can simply expose language/country
on fo:root, right?
Jeremias Maerki
