xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Clay Leeds <cle...@medata.com>
Subject Re: [Fwd: Re: Performance improvement in property consumption.]
Date Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:08:25 GMT
On Oct 15, 2004, at 12:05 AM, Finn Bock wrote:
<snip>
> In the rest of the elements, the set of fields matches the spec. The 
> only exception is a bug where the some of the inline LayoutManagers 
> uses "vertical-align" which is a shorthand. The layoutmanagers should 
> instead use the properties that the shorthand sets: 
> alignment-baseline, alignment-adjust, baseline-shift and 
> dominant-baseline. But since only one of these properties has been 
> implemented yet, I choose to keep the use of "vertical-align" for now.

When I look at the FOP Compliance page, I see a couple of items which 
are implemented (I assume this page is in reference to the 
0_20_2-maintain CVS branch--I am I correct in this assumption?).

alignment-adjust - no

alignment-baseline - no

baseline-shift - partial (see * below)
* Only values "super" and "sub" have been implemented.

display-align - yes - (partial extended conformance--see ** below)
** Implemented only for table-cell and block-container.
** For table-cell, the "height" attribute must be set for the parent 
table-row; setting the height of the table or the table-cell results in 
vertical centering having no effect.

dominant-baseline - no

relative-align - yes - no

Which of the alignment-* property is the one you're referring to that 
has been implemented?

Web Maestro Clay
-- 
Clay Leeds - <cleeds@medata.com>
Webmaster/Developer - Medata, Inc. - <http://www.medata.com/>
PGP Public Key: <https://mail.medata.com/pgp/cleeds.asc>


Mime
View raw message