On 08/03/11 21:14, Andreas Delmelle wrote:
> 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.
Of course. I’m wondering why you are pointing that out?
> 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/.
So what does the following sentence from Section 6.4.15 mean then?
“The reference-orientation [...] of the region-viewport-area [is]
determined by the formatting object that generates the area (see
6.4.5 fo:page-sequence).”
> As you pointed out, by definition, the reference-orientation of the
> region-viewport-area is '0' with respect to the page-reference-area.
That is not what I pointed out. Please re-read my previous message. The
reference-orientation of the region-reference-area is ‘0’ with respect
to the region-viewport-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.
Why?? Where in the spec is that interpretation of the term
‘reference-area’ given?
OTOH, in Section 4.2.2: “An area for which [the is-reference-area] trait
is true is called a reference-area.”
>> <snip />
>> I am getting a little impatient
>
> OK... Take a deep breath.
I can’t, I have a cold ;-)
>> 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.
Again, the reference-orientation of the region-reference-area is 0.
> The before-edge of the region-viewport-area (V)
This is ambiguous. Of which rectangle of the region-viewport-area? The
edge is not the same whether we are talking about the
border/padding-rectangle or the content-rectangle.
> 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?
The descriptions of fo:simple-page-master and
fo:region-before/after/start/end simply are different.
Which makes me realize that there is no mention of the
page-viewport/reference-area pair in the description of the
from-page-master-region() function. Sigh. That one will have to be
handled another time I’m afraid.
> It's the same principle:
> * viewport-area: implicit reference-orientation="0"
> * reference-area: reference-orientation as specified
That is simply not true. I think the excerpts I took from the
specification are clear enough on this regard.
> Regards,
>
> Andreas
Vincent
