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