Thanks for all the feedback. I haven't been able to go through all of it,
yet, but I have printed it out and will discuss it with Luca on Tuesday
evening. We'll probably have to assign some priorities as the day will
be over very quickly. I doubt we'll be able to go into much detail.
Over all my m
Oh, I found a good one in the 1.1 spec.
Remove page-position=last/only; there is no way to guarentee that it can
work. There is no algorithm that can make it work in the general case. Sure,
if the last page and the page that would have been there had it not been the
last page used the same region
Simon Pepping wrote:
> Block content in inline content is the natural organization of
displayed formulas and tables. Demanding that FO generating
stylesheets separate them is moving the burden back to them. I am not
in favour of that.
Ah, I start seeing the point. You might have add images as
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 12:42 +0200, Simon Pepping wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 11:45:08PM +0200, J.Pietschmann wrote:
> > Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > >If anyone has any requirements for XSL-FO 2.0 which I should bring up at
> > >the workshop in Heidelberg next week, please let me know.
> >
> > M
On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 11:45:08PM +0200, J.Pietschmann wrote:
> Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> >If anyone has any requirements for XSL-FO 2.0 which I should bring up at
> >the workshop in Heidelberg next week, please let me know.
>
> More radical thoughts:
> - Deprecate mixing inlines and blocks :-P
B
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
If anyone has any requirements for XSL-FO 2.0 which I should bring up at
the workshop in Heidelberg next week, please let me know. Deadline
2006-10-16 so I have time to prepare.
Luca, are you going, too? How do you travel?
Yes, I'm going.
I think I'll travel by train,
Jeremias Maerki a écrit :
> If anyone has any requirements for XSL-FO 2.0 which I should bring up at
> the workshop in Heidelberg next week, please let me know. Deadline
> 2006-10-16 so I have time to prepare.
Jörg's comments just reminded me of something I think is missing in the
current spec:
En
A few. I do think, when proposing these things, it is important to remember
that XSL-FO is not intended to implement all possible typsetting operations,
that it still needs to remain "easily" implementable.
I guess one question I have is how different should XSL-FO 2.0 be from 1.1?
Should it just
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
If anyone has any requirements for XSL-FO 2.0 which I should bring up at
the workshop in Heidelberg next week, please let me know.
Some rough ideas, unpolished, and without even having had a look at
both 1.1 and the current 2.0 proposals:
- Generalize headers/footers for
