Peter B. West wrote:
Recall that the contents of fo:block are defined as
(#PCDATA|%inline;|%block;)*
and that there are some interesting complications in the contents of
"&inline;" which, frankly, I still don't understand in spite of
clarifications from the editors.
One complication is whitespa
As I read it, no more than normal. If a block contains text, the
individual glyph areas will, conceptually, be assembled into line-areas.
There is no FO corresponding to a line-area. Where side-floats are
introduced, intrusion adjustment occurs, which may affect the placement
of text in line
Possibly (I haven't studied fo:float at this
time)--but we were speaking about a very specific
case, there may be many others that cause fo:blocks to
be split into multiple areas.
--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not that I'm a specialist in this area, but won't
> fo:float also cau
Not that I'm a specialist in this area, but won't fo:float also cause an
fo:block to be split into multiple areas even if the block itself
doesn't span multiple pages?
On 11.11.2003 01:30:18 Peter B. West wrote:
> I've always assumed that the one or more areas are a logical consequence
> of the f
Glen Mazza wrote:
Thank you both for the clarifications.
--- "Peter B. West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The area tree
describes laid-out areas to be rendered on some
medium, and
as
every area
which describes a mark on a page must have a region
in its ancestry, we
are obliged to consider indiv
Thank you both for the clarifications.
--- "Peter B. West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The area tree
> describes laid-out areas to be rendered on some
> medium, and every area
> which describes a mark on a page must have a region
> in its ancestry, we
> are obliged to consider individual FOs
I've always assumed that the one or more areas are a logical consequence
of the fact that generating FOs may overflow a page. The area tree
describes laid-out areas to be rendered on some medium, and every area
which describes a mark on a page must have a region in its ancestry, we
are obliged
Glen Mazza wrote:
I am assuming this is just an implementation
convenience for us--just to confirm, the spec does
allow for an fo:block to consume more than one page,
correct? I wasn't able to find otherwise.
Well, the spec always has this phrase "one or more areas".
It doesn't really explicitely
