i'm not sure what you mean by 'ancestor', since containment relation is not
at issue here;
your argument is counter to the definition of the parameter entity %inline;
defined in XSL 1.1 Section 6.2
The parameter entity, "%inline;" in the content models below, contains the
following formatting objects:
bidi-override
character
external-graphic
instream-foreign-object
inline
inline-container
leader
page-number
page-number-citation
page-number-citation-last
scaling-value-citation
basic-link
multi-toggle
index-page-citation-list
i believe you should first restore the previous state of affairs, and then,
if you wish to continue making the case that it is not inline, take it up
with the group and get consensus before making what appears to be a possibly
unjustified architectural change
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Peter Hancock <[email protected]>wrote:
> While fo:basic-link and fo:inline are both inline level elements, one
> is not the ancestor of the other and so FOP's model of the FO elements
> should reflect this, I believe.
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Glenn Adams <[email protected]> wrote:
> > if I recall, I need this inheritance (from Inline) to work in the complex
> > script branch as well
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Simon Pepping <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:18:54AM -0000, [email protected] wrote:
> >> > Author: phancock
> >> > Date: Thu Sep 29 10:18:53 2011
> >> > New Revision: 1177251
> >> >
> >> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1177251&view=rev
> >> > Log:
> >> > Fix FO tree hierarchy: BasicLink shouldn't inherit from Inline
> >>
> >> Why? A basic-link is an inline object which generates inline areas.
> >>
> >> Simon
> >
> >
>
