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 too. > <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 any. > 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 region-viewport-area". > > 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 Regards, Andreas
