Re: Markers in areas
Arved Sandstrom wrote: Joerg, you can freely get rid of that stuff. I originally introduced it when I had more faith in the spec, and thought that the authors knew what they were talking about when it came to to their math. Specifically, the lineage pairs is an abstract concept that I can see no implementation use for. In fact, I can't see any theoretical use for the idea either. Arved, I'm glad that I am not the only one who could see no purpose in the discussion of lineage. However, I'd like your comments on a couple of aspects of lineage. The first of the two parts of the definition: quoteA set of nodes in a tree is a lineage if: * there is a node N in the set such that all the nodes in the set are ancestors of N, and /quote This seems a strange. quoteNormal areas represent areas in the normal flow of text; that is, they become area children of the areas generated by the formatting object to which they are returned. Normal areas have a returned-by lineage of size one./quote I wondered about the point of all this, but in looking at the Errata, I found a series of modifications for the description of 'Areas' in the description of fo:bidi-override, fo:inline and fo:basic-link as follows: quoteSection 6.6.2 Replace: in the Areas: portion returns these areas, any page-level-out-of-line areas, and any reference-level-out-of-line areas returned by the children with returns these areas, together with any normal block-areas, page-level-out-of-line areas, and reference-level-out-of-line areas returned by the children/quote It seesm to me that these changes create normal block areas with a lineage with size greater than one. What do you think? -- Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/ Lord, to whom shall we go? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Markers in areas
Arved Sandstrom wrote: They are not connected concepts, Mark. I originally put in the code for lineage pairs, and also started the implementation for markers. So I can assure you that they are completely unrelated. For what it's worth, subsequent contributors have significantly improved on marker support, so I am only commenting from the viewpoint of my knowledge of the spec. I made a few comments in my reply to Joerg. I have a degree in physics, and most of a Masters in physical oceanography. I see considerable mathematical anarchy in the XSL spec, some degree of mathematical naivete, and lots of confusion. My forte is not logic, based on my background, but even a physics guy can dissect the pseudo-logic in that spec. I think plenty of other people have also separated the wheat from the chaff as far as that document is concerned...I think we are due for a rewrite, with lots of the pretentious math excised, and replaced with plain language. Arved, Hear, hear. Arved, have you told the editors this directly? If not, please do. -- Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/ Lord, to whom shall we go? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Markers in areas
Well, Peter, no, I haven't written something this direct - yet. My trust in their responsiveness is at an ebb; they don't answer much communication, of any nature, quickly, so I doubt that they will answer a more critical email at all. FWIW I consider all of the editors to be way more experienced than me, when it comes to documents, and publishing, and so forth. I don't equate that with expertise in math, or programming, or technical writing. Number one, trained technical writers should write technical docs - a whole bunch of W3C recommendations prove that. _I_ am not very good at writing technical docs; I get windy and abstruse. That's why I don't get paid to write docs. :-) Every XSL-FO implementation has a different treatment of reference-orientation. I keep harping on this, I know. In fact, I think _my_ interpretation is correct, and almost everyone else is wrong. I think that because I read the English in the spec. I know that sounds arrogant, but I have told the editors before that I'll implement according to the letter, not the spirit. If they wish to argue that the language says differently than what I think, that's their prerogative. There is a better procedure for turning out specs. The W3C hasn't twigged. Good companies in the industry already know it. It's invite the customers/clients in, get them to hash things out with the programmers and technical writers, and then let the latter two groups turn out a good document, or a good implementation. Or both. In this case the experts are the customers; we have a confused spec because they thought they were the programmers and writers as well. Arved -Original Message- From: Peter B. West [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: February 22, 2003 8:23 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Markers in areas Arved Sandstrom wrote: They are not connected concepts, Mark. I originally put in the code for lineage pairs, and also started the implementation for markers. So I can assure you that they are completely unrelated. For what it's worth, subsequent contributors have significantly improved on marker support, so I am only commenting from the viewpoint of my knowledge of the spec. I made a few comments in my reply to Joerg. I have a degree in physics, and most of a Masters in physical oceanography. I see considerable mathematical anarchy in the XSL spec, some degree of mathematical naivete, and lots of confusion. My forte is not logic, based on my background, but even a physics guy can dissect the pseudo-logic in that spec. I think plenty of other people have also separated the wheat from the chaff as far as that document is concerned...I think we are due for a rewrite, with lots of the pretentious math excised, and replaced with plain language. Arved, Hear, hear. Arved, have you told the editors this directly? If not, please do. -- Peter B. West [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/ Lord, to whom shall we go? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Markers in areas
Arved Sandstrom wrote: Joerg, you can freely get rid of that stuff. Great! Anybody out there bothering to profile the new code? Two objects less created per Area, this should be noticable! J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Markers in areas
... but markers will continue to work as per the XSLFO spec, correct? We depend on markers for dynamic page headings. -- Mark C. Allman -- Allman Professional Consulting, Inc. -- www.allmanpc.com, 617-947-4263 -Original Message- From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 4:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Markers in areas Arved Sandstrom wrote: Joerg, you can freely get rid of that stuff. Great! Anybody out there bothering to profile the new code? Two objects less created per Area, this should be noticable! J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Markers in areas
They are not connected concepts, Mark. I originally put in the code for lineage pairs, and also started the implementation for markers. So I can assure you that they are completely unrelated. For what it's worth, subsequent contributors have significantly improved on marker support, so I am only commenting from the viewpoint of my knowledge of the spec. I made a few comments in my reply to Joerg. I have a degree in physics, and most of a Masters in physical oceanography. I see considerable mathematical anarchy in the XSL spec, some degree of mathematical naivete, and lots of confusion. My forte is not logic, based on my background, but even a physics guy can dissect the pseudo-logic in that spec. I think plenty of other people have also separated the wheat from the chaff as far as that document is concerned...I think we are due for a rewrite, with lots of the pretentious math excised, and replaced with plain language. Arved -Original Message- From: Mark C. Allman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: February 18, 2003 5:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Markers in areas ... but markers will continue to work as per the XSLFO spec, correct? We depend on markers for dynamic page headings. -- Mark C. Allman -- Allman Professional Consulting, Inc. -- www.allmanpc.com, 617-947-4263 -Original Message- From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 4:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Markers in areas Arved Sandstrom wrote: Joerg, you can freely get rid of that stuff. Great! Anybody out there bothering to profile the new code? Two objects less created per Area, this should be noticable! J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Markers in areas
Mark C. Allman wrote: ... but markers will continue to work as per the XSLFO spec, correct? There are restrictions (and have always been). Look into the CHANGES file. J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Markers in areas
Joerg, you can freely get rid of that stuff. I originally introduced it when I had more faith in the spec, and thought that the authors knew what they were talking about when it came to to their math. Specifically, the lineage pairs is an abstract concept that I can see no implementation use for. In fact, I can't see any theoretical use for the idea either. Arved -Original Message- From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: February 16, 2003 8:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Markers in areas Hi, does somebody need the markers attached to an area? I just canned them, as well as another array atteched to areas (lineage pairs). Markers were only used in the XML renderer. They ought to have uses to implement retrieve-positions first-include-carryover and last-ending-within-page, but they didn't get used for this. Objections? J.Pietschmann - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
