A drop cap, in other words. :-)
> -Original Message-
> From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: May 14, 2002 4:47 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Line breaks and other typographical stuff (was: Re: Latest
> FOP schema)
>
>
> Arved Sands
J.Pietschmann wrote:
> Patrick Andries wrote:
>
>>> This begs the question: how should arbitrary
>>> non-breaking spaces be expressed in XSLFO, and how often does
>>> this issue arise?
>>
>> Well, in fine French typography, this occurs often. Semicolon,
>> question marks and exclanation marks
Joerg Pietschmann wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
I found them online, the relevant URLs appear to be http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/LineBreak.txt http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/extracted/DerivedLineBreak.txtand for the interpretation of the codes http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDA
> -Original Message-
> From: Joerg Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: May 14, 2002 7:52 AM
> To: FOP Dev
> Subject: Line breaks and other typographical stuff (was: Re: Latest FOP
> schema)
>
> Well, if we are at this, another typographical nastyness
> -Original Message-
> From: Joerg Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: May 14, 2002 7:52 AM
> To: FOP Dev
> Subject: Line breaks and other typographical stuff (was: Re: Latest FOP
> schema)
>
> I found them online, the relevant URLs appear to be
> ht
Self-followup:
> Peter B. West wrote:
> > These cover such categories as
> > Case, Numeric Value, Dashes, Line Breaking and Spaces.
I found them online, the relevant URLs appear to be
http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/LineBreak.txt
http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/extracted/DerivedLin
Peter B. West wrote:
> My take on this would be that the fo:block, by definition, breaks the
> line. The question of whether this is an allowable place for a line
> break is pre-empted by the user's assertion that it is. In these
> circumstances, point 3 does not come into play.
I don't think
Joerg,
Comments below.
Joerg Pietschmann wrote:
>"Arved Sandstrom" wrote:
>
>
>>I think the predominant opinion is (assume all of this fits on one page) -
>>
>>a normal block area (generated by the outer block) that contains:
>>
>>one or more line areas for "level_0_text fills to position A"
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote:
> I think the predominant opinion is (assume all of this fits on one page) -
>
> a normal block area (generated by the outer block) that contains:
>
> one or more line areas for "level_0_text fills to position A";
> then a block area with one or more line areas for "lev
Comments intermingled.
> -Original Message-
> From: J.U. Anderegg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: May 13, 2002 5:15 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: AW: AW: Latest FOP schema
>
> J. Pietschmann wrote:
>
> are
>
> > Rectangular areas, perha
J. Pietschmann wrote:
are
> Rectangular areas, perhaps indented and with border, padding
> and other individual traits, nested into a rectangular area.
I understand setting traits, properties. How about page layout, setting
inline and baseline postitions? Does it imply a unconditional CRLF?
W
J.U. Anderegg wrote:
>>From the external view means a rectangle containing formatted text,
> something like a paragraph.
>
> o What do as children of : mean for the end user?
Rectangular areas, perhaps indented and with border, padding
and other individual traits, nested into a rectangular are
>From the external view means a rectangle containing formatted text,
something like a paragraph.
o What do as children of : mean for the end user?
o What's teheffect of 's in combination with tag element TEXT like
, , , , ?
o When is a required?
Hansuli Anderegg
Chuck Paussa wrote:
> "background-position" applies to block-level and replaced elements
> (What are replaced elements?)
This seems to be an odd artefact of not having checked everything.
The "background-position" property is a shorthand for combinations
of the "background-position-(horizontal|ve
Kieron wrote:
> This looks very good.
> I think we should put this somewhere on the site when it is ready.
That would be excellent Not quite done yet.
I missed the attributes in the spec that are only listed as applying to
elements but are not referred to in the element description. I'm
confus
Hi Chuck,
This looks very good.
I think we should put this somewhere on the site when it is ready.
On Thu, 2002-05-09 at 23:30, Chuck Paussa wrote:
> I've greatly improved the FO schema I've been working on. I've added
> patterns for most of the attribute types. I'd appreciate it if some
> f
I've greatly improved the FO schema I've been working on. I've added
patterns for most of the attribute types. I'd appreciate it if some
folks would run their FO documents through a validator against this
schema and respond with where I've done a less than excellent job.
The schema as deliver
17 matches
Mail list logo
