On 10/03/11 10:05, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
From a user view, this definitely makes sense. But I cannot say that I
fully grasp what the spec says about line-building and inline areas. It
almost seems that line-stacking-strategy=line-height might address
parts of this problem, but I'm not sure.
On 09.03.2011 19:48:12 Andreas Delmelle wrote:
snip/
Especially relevant is the question what other implementations do. If
they, too, exhibit the behavior that is now proposed as the default,
then it could be a strong argument in favor. Often enough, a spec
ultimately evolves to match the
On 09/03/2011 16:44, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
I’d like to launch a vote for the integration of the patch from
Bugzilla #50763 [1] into the Trunk.
The implementation of fo:basic-link would deviate from the XSL-FO 1.1
Recommendation, and behave as if the following sentence were added to
Section
On 09/03/2011 16:56, Glenn Adams wrote:
Hi Glenn,
Has there been any definite response from the W3C for your original
bug filing that confirms your interpretation and agrees there is a
problem? If not (and I don't see a response yet in the W3C bug
report), then it may be premature to take a
The reason I ask is it is possible that Vincent's interpretation of the spec
(and the current FOP implementation) is incorrect. I am not saying it is or
it isn't. It has been my experience with the XSL-FO spec and the XSL-FO
group that straightforward interpretations are not always possible or in
Anders was the editor of the spec, and in the best position to provide a
reading on interpretation. Sharon was the chair of that activity, so in the
best position to trigger a response.
G.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Vincent Hennebert vhenneb...@gmail.comwrote:
On 09/03/11 17:16, Glenn
