xmlgraphics-fop-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Hancock <peter.hanc...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1177251 - in /xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop: fo/flow/BasicLink.java layoutmgr/inline/InlineLayoutManager.java pdf/PDFFactory.java
Date Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:18:16 GMT
By ancestor I refer to the relationship with respect to the fo:
element hierarchy: Since the definition of fo:basic-link does not
depend upon fo:inline, we cannot conclude that fo:basic-link is an
fo:inline.

The parameter entity "%inline;" refers to inline-level fo elements,
fo:inline and fo:basic-link being members, and this is now reflected
on the FOP FO object hierarchy, where Inline and BasicLink extend
InlineLevel

Have I understood the recommendation correctly, or have I missed anything?

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> i'm not sure what you mean by 'ancestor', since containment relation is not
> at issue here;
> your argument is counter to the definition of the parameter entity %inline;
> defined in XSL 1.1 Section 6.2
>
> The parameter entity, "%inline;" in the content models below, contains the
> following formatting objects:
>
>      bidi-override
>      character
>      external-graphic
>      instream-foreign-object
>      inline
>      inline-container
>      leader
>      page-number
>      page-number-citation
>      page-number-citation-last
>      scaling-value-citation
>      basic-link
>      multi-toggle
>      index-page-citation-list
>
> i believe you should first restore the previous state of affairs, and then,
> if you wish to continue making the case that it is not inline, take it up
> with the group and get consensus before making what appears to be a possibly
> unjustified architectural change
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Peter Hancock <peter.hancock@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> While fo:basic-link and fo:inline are both inline level elements, one
>> is not the ancestor of the other and so FOP's model of the FO elements
>> should reflect this, I believe.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>> > if I recall, I need this inheritance (from Inline) to work in the
>> > complex
>> > script branch as well
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Simon Pepping <spepping@leverkruid.eu>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:18:54AM -0000, phancock@apache.org wrote:
>> >> > Author: phancock
>> >> > Date: Thu Sep 29 10:18:53 2011
>> >> > New Revision: 1177251
>> >> >
>> >> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1177251&view=rev
>> >> > Log:
>> >> > Fix FO tree hierarchy: BasicLink shouldn't inherit from Inline
>> >>
>> >> Why? A basic-link is an inline object which generates inline areas.
>> >>
>> >> Simon
>> >
>> >
>
>

Mime
View raw message