Re: Error in computation of inline progression dimension ?

2005-02-16 Thread Luca Furini
Jeremias Maerki wrote: [Glen Mazza] So Luca is correct that both fo:simple-page-masters should generate the same overall margins of 50 pt. each, no? No. :-) Ok, now I am convinced you are right. Thanks for all your explanations, I always found this part of the recommendation quite obscure!

Re: Error in computation of inline progression dimension ?

2005-02-16 Thread Glen Mazza
--- Glen Mazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This IMO is the fatal flaw in your logic in your previous email. You determined fo:s-p-m and fo:r-b to be type (1) FO's, and hence used the wrong equations in 5.3.2 to determine calculated values for them. They are type (3) FO's, and hence the first

Re: Error in computation of inline progression dimension ?

2005-02-16 Thread Jeremias Maerki
Damn, Glen, thanks for being so insistent. I was indeed wrong. You didn't really give me the prove I needed to be rewired but you got me looking again all over the spec and I found what was wrong: It doesn't really matter if the FOs generate reference areas or not, the key is that 5.3.2 is

Re: Error in computation of inline progression dimension ?

2005-02-16 Thread Glen Mazza
--- Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It doesn't really matter if the FOs generate reference areas or not, the Well, the Recommendation declares which of the three types each FO belongs to, in the Areas section in each FO definition. It is a static answer that holds for all FO's of a

Error in computation of inline progression dimension ?

2005-02-15 Thread Luca Furini
I noticed a strange behaviour concerning margins that could be related to the inheritance of start-indend and end-indent, which was discussed a few weeks ago. It seems that in some situations the margins are subtracted twice from the available inline progression dimension. In the little fo file

Re: Error in computation of inline progression dimension ?

2005-02-15 Thread Jeremias Maerki
Hi Luca, the reason for the effect you're seeing is the inheritance of start-indent and end-indent. In your exapmle, if you specify a margin-left and margin-right on the simple-page-master, this results (corresponding properties) in a start-indent and end-indent of 50pt each. Now, because

Re: Error in computation of inline progression dimension ?

2005-02-15 Thread Glen Mazza
--- Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Luca, the reason for the effect you're seeing is the inheritance of start-indent and end-indent. In your exapmle, if you specify a margin-left and margin-right on the simple-page-master, this results (corresponding properties) in a

Re: Error in computation of inline progression dimension ?

2005-02-15 Thread Jeremias Maerki
On 15.02.2005 17:46:54 Glen Mazza wrote: --- Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Luca, the reason for the effect you're seeing is the inheritance of start-indent and end-indent. In your exapmle, if you specify a margin-left and margin-right on the simple-page-master,

Re: Error in computation of inline progression dimension ?

2005-02-15 Thread Jeremias Maerki
Yes, I was probably not 100% correct in my explanation though my interpretation still stands. On 15.02.2005 18:02:14 Glen Mazza wrote: Oh--5.3.2 says: There are two more properties, end-indent and start-indent (block-level formatting objects) which correspond to the various absolute margin

Re: Error in computation of inline progression dimension ?

2005-02-15 Thread Glen Mazza
But if start-indent and margin-left are not Corresponding Properties, then the inheritance of 50pt. you gave in your example would not occur. IMO, if start-indent and margin-left were actually intended to be Corresponding Properties, the former would have been named margin-start. Also,

Re: Error in computation of inline progression dimension ?

2005-02-15 Thread Jeremias Maerki
In mid January Peter helped me understand what's going on. Please have a look at his explanation [1]. Maybe that makes it clearer. The margin properties are never used directly in the layout engine (I think and hope). I'm always working from *-indent and space-*. I think it's obvious enough from

Re: Error in computation of inline progression dimension ?

2005-02-15 Thread Glen Mazza
Jeremias, I am wrong here. This phrase in 5.3.2: If the corresponding absolute margin property is specified on the formatting object... Clearly means that margin *is* a CP, and hence is a CP with start-indent/end-indent as appropriate. Forget that argument--never mind, and I'm sorry that you

Re: Error in computation of inline progression dimension ?

2005-02-15 Thread Glen Mazza
--- Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Luca, the reason for the effect you're seeing is the inheritance of start-indent and end-indent. In your exapmle, if you specify a margin-left and margin-right on the simple-page-master, (margin-left and margin-right of 50pt each on

Re: Error in computation of inline progression dimension ?

2005-02-15 Thread Glen Mazza
On second thought, Jeremias, instead of arguing this, why don't we just compromise at 75pt. margins? ;) Glen --- Glen Mazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Luca, the reason for the effect you're seeing is the inheritance of start-indent

Re: Error in computation of inline progression dimension ?

2005-02-15 Thread Jeremias Maerki
90pt, no less. On 16.02.2005 05:15:36 Glen Mazza wrote: On second thought, Jeremias, instead of arguing this, why don't we just compromise at 75pt. margins? ;) Jeremias Maerki

Re: Error in computation of inline progression dimension ?

2005-02-15 Thread Jeremias Maerki
I'm afraid that you're wrong here. It's true that s-p-m and region-body don't directly generate reference areas but they also can't, because they are only used as a template for each new page. For for each page they serve as FOs that generate reference areas. But let me give you another example