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

RE: [XSL-FO] line-height of a basic-link around an

Expand Messages
  • bryan
    ... is ... It would also be in keeping with the type of links that most people would be familiar with, i.e hyperlinking in html. It would be compatible with
    Message 1 of 17 , Aug 12, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >>However, the problem is real - I concur that in David Cramer's case,
      >>XEP's behaviour is far from intuitive. Maybe we should ask authors
      >>of the XSL spec?

      >I am interested to hear their response, as I am still of the mind there
      is
      >an interpretation that can allow for the entire graphic to be hot.

      It would also be in keeping with the type of links that most people
      would be familiar with, i.e hyperlinking in html.
      It would be compatible with simple XLink.

      I have a hard time seeing how it would be a useful feature that links
      behaved in this manner, unless it were for the purpose of defining
      hotspots for images, which could be achieved via other ways - although
      granted each one that I can think of would have an ugly hack feel to
      them.
      If anyone can think of how such behavior would be a useful feature
      please explain.

      At any rate given
      http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl/slice1.html#section-N1044-Linking refers to
      html linking for formatting of a link, and XLink for the semantics of
      following a link, and given(if indeed you would give this) that the
      section above seems to be an abstract description of intended meaning of
      what linking is in XSL-FO then I think Ken is right here.
    • David Tolpin
      Ken et al, this problem is not the only one in the current Recommendation. The fact that common sense contradicts with the word of the document should not draw
      Message 2 of 17 , Aug 12, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Ken et al,

        this problem is not the only one in the current Recommendation.

        The fact that common sense contradicts with the word of the document
        should not draw implementors from following the XSL FO Recommendation;
        the path of common sense leads to troubles way mor often than it seems
        it does.

        If the spec means that basic-link should propagate hot areas to all
        _contained_ areas, not just to _containing_ ones, then it should
        be worded as such, namely, that

        - both internal-destination and external-destination are inheritable
        - they apply to all elements generating normal inline or block-level
        areas
        - they by themselves turn the areas into link anchors.

        Then fo:basic-link wouldn't be required for any but purely cosmetical purpose
        and the behaviour that lives in agreement with common sense would become
        natural.

        Right now, however, the recommendation is clear in that respect: basic-link
        is the element to form an anchor; and hot areas are containing areas generated
        by the element.

        David
      • David Tolpin
        As a followup, I would like to admit that although XSL FO Recommendation can and probably should be improved; almost every case where common sense is in
        Message 3 of 17 , Aug 12, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          As a followup,

          I would like to admit that although XSL FO Recommendation can and probably should
          be improved; almost every case where common sense is in contradiction with the
          recommended behaviour, the latter turns out to be more consistent and logical
          at closer investigation.

          Consider a case when a basic-link with internal-destination is nested
          within a basic-link with external-destination. If the anchor is built
          of all descendant areas, then where should the link attached to descendants
          of the innermost basic-link point to?

          Should it point just to external-destination? Or to both external and internal?

          Where in the recommendation is it described?

          It seems to me that the least contradictory approach is one chosen
          by the recommendation, that is that the link is attached to the
          area generated by a basic-link element. It permits a comprehendable implementation
          in general case. I don't see how other approaches can be clearly expressed within
          the current logic of XSL FO.

          David Tolpin
        • G. Ken Holman
          ... Yet some implementations choose to not do property inheritance through certain constructs, such as footnotes, which I understand the specification
          Message 4 of 17 , Aug 23, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            At 2002-08-13 01:45 +0500, David Tolpin wrote:
            >this problem is not the only one in the current Recommendation.
            >
            >The fact that common sense contradicts with the word of the document
            >should not draw implementors from following the XSL FO Recommendation;
            >the path of common sense leads to troubles way mor often than it seems
            >it does.

            Yet some implementations choose to not do property inheritance "through"
            certain constructs, such as footnotes, which I understand the specification
            requires.

            For example, if I have a footnote in an indented block, then the blocks of
            the footnote inherit that indent and the footnote must reset the indent to
            ensure the block isn't indented at the bottom of the page.

            Two commercial implementations that are available right now produce
            different results because of the choices of "common sense" vs. "verbatim
            interpretation of the specification".

            >If the spec means that basic-link should propagate hot areas to all
            >_contained_ areas, not just to _containing_ ones, then it should
            >be worded as such,

            Yet so many in the industry are expecting the entire contents of the basic
            link to be hot (i.e. the contained areas) and not just the basic link (i.e.
            the containing area).

            Can someone on the XSL committee comment on whether the basic-link
            controversy is perhaps an erratum that hasn't yet been published?

            Thanks!

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


            --
            Upcoming hands-on in-depth 3-days XSLT/XPath and/or 2-days XSL-FO:
            - North America: Sep 30-Oct 4,2002
            - Japan: Oct 7-Oct 11,2002

            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 and 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: 2002-08-26,27,09-30,10-03,07,10,12-08
          • David Tolpin
            ... Should footnotes anchored inside a basic-link be hot? David
            Message 5 of 17 , Aug 23, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              > >If the spec means that basic-link should propagate hot areas to all
              > >_contained_ areas, not just to _containing_ ones, then it should
              > >be worded as such,
              >
              > Yet so many in the industry are expecting the entire contents of the basic
              > link to be hot (i.e. the contained areas) and not just the basic link (i.e.
              > the containing area).
              >

              Should footnotes anchored inside a basic-link be hot?

              David
            • G. Ken Holman
              ... Why not? But I take your point, and it is a good one. Indeed one could make the argument for only normally flowed areas, but again only based on common
              Message 6 of 17 , Aug 24, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                At 2002-08-24 08:05 +0500, David Tolpin wrote:
                > > >If the spec means that basic-link should propagate hot areas to all
                > > >_contained_ areas, not just to _containing_ ones, then it should
                > > >be worded as such,
                > >
                > > Yet so many in the industry are expecting the entire contents of the basic
                > > link to be hot (i.e. the contained areas) and not just the basic link
                > (i.e.
                > > the containing area).
                > >
                >
                >Should footnotes anchored inside a basic-link be hot?

                Why not? But I take your point, and it is a good one. Indeed one could
                make the argument for only normally flowed areas, but again only based on
                common sense and not on the reading of the specification.

                I'm anxious to see what the errata will have to say (as yet empty):

                http://www.w3.org/2001/10/REC-XSL-20011015-errata

                Thanks, David,

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


                --
                Upcoming hands-on in-depth 3-days XSLT/XPath and/or 2-days XSL-FO:
                - North America: Sep 30-Oct 4,2002
                - Japan: Oct 7-Oct 11,2002

                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 and 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: 2002-08-26,27,09-30,10-03,07,10,12-08
              • David Tolpin
                ... Should a marker be hot when the fo:marker is a descendant of a fo:basic-link, or fo:retrieve-marker, or both? David
                Message 7 of 17 , Aug 24, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  > > > >be worded as such,
                  > > >
                  > > > Yet so many in the industry are expecting the entire contents of the basic
                  > > > link to be hot (i.e. the contained areas) and not just the basic link
                  > > (i.e.
                  > > > the containing area).
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > >Should footnotes anchored inside a basic-link be hot?
                  >
                  > Why not? But I take your point, and it is a good one. Indeed one could
                  > make the argument for only normally flowed areas, but again only based on
                  > common sense and not on the reading of the specification.
                  >
                  > I'm anxious to see what the errata will have to say (as yet empty):
                  >
                  > http://www.w3.org/2001/10/REC-XSL-20011015-errata
                  >

                  Should a marker be hot when the fo:marker is a descendant of a fo:basic-link,
                  or fo:retrieve-marker, or both?

                  David
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.