Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Parent of fo:marker

Expand Messages
  • Rodney Boyd
    Hi, According to the XSF-FO spec (section 6.11.3) It is an error if two or more fo:markers that share the same parent have the same marker-class-name
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 11, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi,

      According to the XSF-FO spec (section 6.11.3) "It is an error if two or
      more fo:markers that share the same parent have the same
      "marker-class-name" property value."

      Therefore the following fragment should be illegal becuase all of the
      <marker> tags are children of the same <block>, and the
      marker-class-name attributes are repeated. Nevertheless, at least two
      XSL-FO formatting engines accept it without complaint (though they
      process the <markers> differently!)


      <flow flow-name="xsl-region-body">
      <block font-family="Times" font-size="12pt">
      <marker marker-class-name="hLeftPart">Header Left part 1</marker>
      <marker marker-class-name="fLeftPart">Footer Left part 1</marker>
      <block> Some simple dumb sample document</block>
      <block break-before="page"></block>
      <marker marker-class-name="hLeftPart">Header Left part 2 </marker>
      <marker marker-class-name="fLeftPart">Footer Left part 2 </marker>
      <block>Hello world</block>
      </block>
      </flow>

      My question is, would this fragment comply with the spec if each group
      of <marker> tags were enclosed in a nested <block>, as shown below?


      <flow flow-name="xsl-region-body">
      <block font-family="Times" font-size="12pt">
      <block>
      <marker marker-class-name="hLeftPart"><inline>Header Left part
      1</marker>
      <marker marker-class-name="fLeftPart">Footer Left part 1</marker>
      </block>
      <block> Some simple dumb sample document</block>
      <block break-before="page"></block>
      <block>
      <marker marker-class-name="hLeftPart">Header Left part 2 </marker>
      <marker marker-class-name="fLeftPart">Footer Left part 2 </marker>
      </block>
      <block>Hello world</block>
      </block>
      </flow>

      (fo namespace implied throughout)

      Thanks and regards,
      Rodney
      --

      Rodney Boyd
      Document Conversion Analyst
      Exegenix Research
      http://www.exegenix.com
      +1 416 762 2433
    • G. Ken Holman
      ... In your example it isn t a shared parent area because the markers are in different areas, one on each page, because of your page-break block between them.
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 11, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        At 2002-01-11 10:38 -0500, Rodney Boyd wrote:
        >According to the XSF-FO spec (section 6.11.3) "It is an error if two or
        >more fo:markers that share the same parent have the same
        >"marker-class-name" property value."

        In your example it isn't a shared parent area because the markers are in
        different areas, one on each page, because of your page-break block between
        them.

        But ... from the object level (instead of the area level), you aren't
        meeting the constraint in 6.11.3 that the fo:marker be an initial child of
        its parent formatting object.

        Perhaps that is the error you should be receiving, and since you aren't
        meeting the indicated constraint why you are getting inconsistent results
        from two formatters: GIGO.

        ...................... Ken


        --
        Training Blitz: 3-days XSLT/XPath, 2-days XSLFO - Feb 18-22, 2002

        G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@...
        Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/f/
        Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (Fax:-0995)
        ISBN 0-13-065196-6 Definitive XSLT & XPath
        ISBN 1-894049-08-X Practical Transformation Using XSLT and XPath
        ISBN 1-894049-07-1 Practical Formatting Using XSLFO
        XSL/XML/DSSSL/SGML/OmniMark services, books(electronic, printed),
        articles, training(instructor-live,Internet-live,web/CD,licensed)
        Next public training: 2002-01-16,18,02-11,12,13,15,18,21,
        - 03-11,14,15,18,19,04-08,09,10,12
      • Rodney Boyd
        ... Ah, so parent in this context should be understood as parent area , not parent element ? Is that correct? ... Then does my second example satisfy that
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 11, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          "G. Ken Holman" wrote:
          >
          > At 2002-01-11 10:38 -0500, Rodney Boyd wrote:
          > >According to the XSF-FO spec (section 6.11.3) "It is an error if two or
          > >more fo:markers that share the same parent have the same
          > >"marker-class-name" property value."
          >
          > In your example it isn't a shared parent area because the markers are in
          > different areas, one on each page, because of your page-break block between
          > them.

          Ah, so "parent" in this context should be understood as "parent area",
          not "parent element"? Is that correct?

          >
          > But ... from the object level (instead of the area level), you aren't
          > meeting the constraint in 6.11.3 that the fo:marker be an initial child of
          > its parent formatting object.

          Then does my second example satisfy that constraint?

          <flow flow-name="xsl-region-body">
          <block font-family="Times" font-size="12pt">
          <block>
          <marker marker-class-name="hLeftPart"><inline>Header Left part
          1</marker>
          <marker marker-class-name="fLeftPart">Footer Left part 1</marker>
          </block>
          <block> Some simple dumb sample document</block>
          <block break-before="page"></block>
          <block>
          <marker marker-class-name="hLeftPart">Header Left part 2 </marker>
          <marker marker-class-name="fLeftPart">Footer Left part 2 </marker>
          </block>
          <block>Hello world</block>
          </block>
          </flow>

          (Here the second set of markers is enclosed in its own <block>.)

          >
          > Perhaps that is the error you should be receiving, and since you aren't
          > meeting the indicated constraint why you are getting inconsistent results
          > from two formatters: GIGO.

          Heh. One might have hoped for better.


          Thanks,
          Rodney

          --

          Rodney Boyd
          Document Conversion Analyst
          Exegenix Research
          http://www.exegenix.com
          +1 416 762 2433
        • G. Ken Holman
          ... I wasn t part of the committee, so I don t know for sure ... I wrote the answer above before I saw that you were not meeting the constraints of the
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 11, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            At 2002-01-11 11:57 -0500, Rodney Boyd wrote:
            >"G. Ken Holman" wrote:
            > >
            > > At 2002-01-11 10:38 -0500, Rodney Boyd wrote:
            > > >According to the XSF-FO spec (section 6.11.3) "It is an error if two or
            > > >more fo:markers that share the same parent have the same
            > > >"marker-class-name" property value."
            > >
            > > In your example it isn't a shared parent area because the markers are in
            > > different areas, one on each page, because of your page-break block between
            > > them.
            >
            >Ah, so "parent" in this context should be understood as "parent area",
            >not "parent element"? Is that correct?

            I wasn't part of the committee, so I don't know for sure ... I wrote the
            answer above before I saw that you were not meeting the constraints of the
            formatting objects.

            > > But ... from the object level (instead of the area level), you aren't
            > > meeting the constraint in 6.11.3 that the fo:marker be an initial child of
            > > its parent formatting object.
            >
            >Then does my second example satisfy that constraint?

            Since satisfying the object constraint will satisfy the area constraint, we
            still haven't answered the question above as to whether the designers were
            talking areas or objects in the parentage constraint. But does the
            question really matter now that we know we are meeting the specification's
            object constraint?

            Do your formatters now give you consistent results now with your
            change? If so, then we've probably noodled it out and the software is
            expecting the objects to be organized as stated in the specification.

            > > Perhaps that is the error you should be receiving, and since you aren't
            > > meeting the indicated constraint why you are getting inconsistent results
            > > from two formatters: GIGO.
            >
            >Heh. One might have hoped for better.

            Well ... maybe not ... I don't blame these companies for investing in the
            formatting algorithms first and postponing all semantic validation until later.

            ....................... Ken


            --
            Training Blitz: 3-days XSLT/XPath, 2-days XSLFO - Feb 18-22, 2002

            G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@...
            Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/f/
            Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (Fax:-0995)
            ISBN 0-13-065196-6 Definitive XSLT & XPath
            ISBN 1-894049-08-X Practical Transformation Using XSLT and XPath
            ISBN 1-894049-07-1 Practical Formatting Using XSLFO
            XSL/XML/DSSSL/SGML/OmniMark services, books(electronic, printed),
            articles, training(instructor-live,Internet-live,web/CD,licensed)
            Next public training: 2002-01-16,18,02-11,12,13,15,18,21,
            - 03-11,14,15,18,19,04-08,09,10,12
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.