On 09/03/11 17:16, Glenn Adams wrote: > The reason I ask is it is possible that Vincent's interpretation of the spec > (and the current FOP implementation) is incorrect. > I am not saying it is or > it isn't. It has been my experience with the XSL-FO spec and the XSL-FO > group that straightforward interpretations are not always possible or in > agreement with the intention of the authors. > > I would suggest contacting Anders Berglund or Sharon Adler to verify that > the filed W3C bug is accepted as a bug or not before taking action in FOP.
Well, is it really necessary to escalate this to a particular member of the XSL Working Group? My bug reports have always been taken into account so far, we just have to be patient. We can decide to not apply the patch and wait for clarification by the W3C. This would mean that the current implementation would stay as it is for another couple of months, or more. As far as I’m concerned, I think the current behaviour is not satisfying, so I will stick to my +1. > It might also produce additional information that will help resolve this > issue without declaring an explicit variance from the spec. It would also be > useful to survey other implementations as well to determine their behavior > on this point. > > G. Thanks, Vincent > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Chris Bowditch > <bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com>wrote: > >> On 09/03/2011 16:56, Glenn Adams wrote: >> >> Hi Glenn, >> >> Has there been any definite response from the W3C for your original bug >>> filing that confirms your interpretation and agrees there is a problem? If >>> not (and I don't see a response yet in the W3C bug report), then it may be >>> premature to take a decision. It may be that your interpretation of the >>> specification is not consistent with the XSL-FO group's interpretation, and >>> that this difference is the source of the trouble. >>> >> >> It's true that that the W3C may not agree with this view, but without a >> change it is not possible to make an image a clickable link, which is a >> fairly common requirement. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Chris >> >> >>> G. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Vincent Hennebert >>> <vhenneb...@gmail.com<mailto: >>> vhenneb...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> I’d like to launch a vote for the integration of the patch from >>> Bugzilla #50763  into the Trunk. >>> >>> The implementation of fo:basic-link would deviate from the XSL-FO 1.1 >>> Recommendation, and behave as if the following sentence were added to >>> Section 6.9.2, “fo:basic-link”: >>> “The extent, in the block-progression-dimension, of the >>> content-rectangle of an inline-area generated by fo:basic-link, is >>> the minimum required to enclose the allocation-rectangles of >>> all the >>> inline-areas stacked within that inline-area.” >>> >>> This sentence is borrowed, with minor modifications, from the >>> definition >>> of the maximum-line-rectangle in Section 4.5, “Line-areas”. >>> >>> A bug  has been raised at W3C and the implementation may be changed >>> in the future to match the new requirements that may follow from its >>> resolution. >>> >>>  https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50763 >>>  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11672 >>> >>> +1 from me. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Vincent >>> >>> >>> >> >