From a user view, this definitely makes sense. But I cannot say that I
fully grasp what the spec says about line-building and inline areas. It
almost seems that line-stacking-strategy="line-height" might address
parts of this problem, but I'm not sure.

The patch itself looks ok to me although some of the "business" logic
feels a bit heavy on the area tree side whereas the layout managers
almost don't change. Also, I would have welcomed a note/link somewhere
in the code (and/or test cases) about the possibly non-standard
interpretation of the spec.

+1 with a request to add the link(s)/notes mentioned above.

And +1 to continue watching for the W3C WG's response on this.

On 09.03.2011 17:44:50 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> I’d like to launch a vote for the integration of the patch from
> Bugzilla #50763 [1] 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 [2] 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.
> [1]
> [2]
> +1 from me.
> Thanks,
> Vincent

Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to