On 08 Mar 2011, at 21:26, Vincent Hennebert wrote:

> A viewport-area /is/ a reference-area. See section 4.2.2.

I think we're almost there. 

From that section:

"A common construct is a viewport/reference pair. This is a viewport-area V and 
a block-area reference-area R, where R is the sole child of V ... (continued 
all the way below)" 

In 6.4.14 fo:region-body - Areas:

"The fo:region-body formatting object is used to generate one 
region-viewport-area and one region-reference-area"

Note: *and* implies /two/ areas.

While the region-viewport-area is indeed a reference-area (or more precisely: 
has a value of true for the is-reference-area trait), that is not the one that 
is rotated due to reference-orientation of the /region/. 
As you pointed out, by definition, the reference-orientation of the 
region-viewport-area is '0' with respect to the page-reference-area. Saying 
that the region-reference-area is rotated with respect to the 
region-viewport-area is thus basically the same thing as saying that it is 
rotated with respect to the page-reference-area.
By reference-area, I am referring to the R in the V/R pair described in 4.2.2, 
not "an area with is-reference-area trait set to true", which would cover the V 

> <snip />
> I am getting a little impatient

OK... Take a deep breath.

> because the above is in clear contradiction with what is written in the spec.

No, it's not. See above.

> The topic is already complex, I think it’s important to not add to the 
> confusion by making
> sure we are reading it properly.

I agree. No need to invent contradictions/inconsistencies where there aren't 

> Would you mind backing your points with references to the spec?

No, I don't mind --and so I did.

> If we take the XSL-FO example I put in my first message:

<snip />

OK, I got that.

>  And, as explained in my first message, since the content-rectangle of
>  an area uses the reference-orientation of that area, the description
>  in Section 6.4.15 about how the content-rectangle should be positioned
>  appears to be inconsistent.

No inconsistency here. It explicitly says "content-rectangle of the 

>  The reference-orientation of the region-reference-area is the same as
>  the one from the region-viewport-area:

Unless the region-reference-area is rotated further, as is the case in the 
example. That is the point exactly. 
The before-edge of the region-viewport-area (V) coincides with the before-edge 
of the page-reference-area, while the before-edge of the region-reference-area 
(R) coincides with the start-edge of the region-viewport-area (and ultimately 
also the page-reference-area). 

That is special behavior compared to the normal case (no rotation), as 
described in 4.2.2:

"(continued from above) ... and where the start-edge and end-edge of the 
content-rectangle of R are parallel to the start-edge and end-edge of the 
content-rectangle of V."

You got it completely correct for the reference-orienation on fo:page-sequence: 
the page-reference-area is rotated with respect to the page-viewport-area.
I'm still wondering why the regions would be so much more difficult? 

It's the same principle:
* viewport-area: implicit reference-orientation="0"
* reference-area: reference-orientation as specified



Reply via email to