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

Re: [XSL-FO] Predictability of rendering regions on the page

Expand Messages
  • Eliot Kimber
    ... When absolute=absolute, the block-container is positioned relative to its nearest ancestor reference area. For a block container that has no ancestor block
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Mike Trotman wrote:
      > Do you know what the correct origin for absolute positioning should be -
      > is it relative to the page,
      > or relative to the region?

      When absolute=absolute, the block-container is positioned relative to
      its nearest ancestor reference area. For a block container that has no
      ancestor block containers, its nearest reference area will be the area
      for the page region that contains it (e.g., region-body, region-before,
      etc.).

      When absolute=fixed, the block-container is positioned relative to the
      edges of the page (including any page margins, if specified).

      Older versions of XEP only supported absolute=fixed. I believe that 4.x
      supports absolute=absolute as well as fixed.

      Cheers,

      Eliot

      --
      W. Eliot Kimber
      Professional Services
      Innodata Isogen
      9390 Research Blvd, #410
      Austin, TX 78759
      (512) 372-8155

      ekimber@...
      www.innodata-isogen.com
    • G. Ken Holman
      ... Drat! This is quite necessary for what I need to accomplish. ... Good point, I can see that to be true. ... Yes, of course ... I just had not considered
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        At 2005-06-03 16:16 -0400, Paul Grosso wrote:
        > > From: xsl-editors-request@... On Behalf Of G. Ken Holman
        > > Sent: Friday, 03 June, 2005 9:17
        > > To: XSL Editors; XSL-FO W3C; XSL-FO-Yahoo List
        > > Subject: Predictability of rendering regions on the page
        > > ...
        > > Does XSL-FO 1.0 dictate that the perimeter regions are
        > > rendered before the body region?
        >
        >No.
        >
        > >
        > > Does XSL-FO 1.0 dictate that the static content is rendered
        > > before the flowed content?
        >
        >No.

        Drat! This is quite necessary for what I need to accomplish.

        > > I cannot, however, find any predictability in the XSL-FO 1.0
        > > specification
        > > ... perhaps I just cannot find it ... if it isn't there, can
        > > the XSL-FO 1.1 specification dictate this?
        >
        >I don't think it should. That is getting to close to
        >specifying a processing model.

        Good point, I can see that to be true.

        >XSL-FO tries to avoid
        >that and instead specifies constraints that should hold
        >for the composed result.

        Yes, of course ... I just had not considered ordering to be related to
        processing.

        >I'd think a better way to accomplish this would be to
        >use the z-index property, but I note z-index is not
        >applicable to region-*.

        Indeed.

        >So your request should be for the XSL FO SG to consider
        >adding z-index to the list of properties applicable to
        >the region-* FOs in XSL 1.1. [I have no idea what the
        >SG members will think of this.]

        I hope the SG members do consider this worthwhile as it would bring
        predictability to my real-world requirement of overlapping regions.

        Having included XSL Editors on this list, I hope this note is sufficient to
        the task of requesting such a feature.

        >paul
        >(just speaking for myself)

        Thank you, Paul, for your opinion and for bringing light to an aspect of my
        request of which I was unaware.

        . . . . . . . . . . Ken

        --
        World-wide on-site corporate, govt. & user group XML/XSL training.
        G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@...
        Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/f/
        Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
        Male Breast Cancer Awareness http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/f/bc
        Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
      • Mike Trotman
        Thanks Eliot. That clarifies things a lot. As both packages only supported one meaning of absolute when I was trying it I obviously never looked closely at
        Message 3 of 5 , Jun 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks Eliot.

          That clarifies things a lot.

          As both packages only supported one meaning of 'absolute' when I was
          trying it I obviously never looked closely at the details of the
          absolute-position property.
          I was using position='absolute' (expecting to get the same behaviour in
          each package)
          but it looks like the older version of XEP ignored the 'absolute' value
          and used 'fixed'
          (and possibly FOP only supported 'absolute' as the behaviour with
          'fixed' never seemed to work)?

          As I was looking for a specification that rendered the same in both
          packages
          I solved the problem by using region-before - when the 'absolute'
          offsets gave the same result in both packages.


          Mike

          Eliot Kimber wrote:

          >Mike Trotman wrote:
          >
          >
          >>Do you know what the correct origin for absolute positioning should be -
          >>is it relative to the page,
          >>or relative to the region?
          >>
          >>
          >
          >When absolute=absolute, the block-container is positioned relative to
          >its nearest ancestor reference area. For a block container that has no
          >ancestor block containers, its nearest reference area will be the area
          >for the page region that contains it (e.g., region-body, region-before,
          >etc.).
          >
          >When absolute=fixed, the block-container is positioned relative to the
          >edges of the page (including any page margins, if specified).
          >
          >Older versions of XEP only supported absolute=fixed. I believe that 4.x
          >supports absolute=absolute as well as fixed.
          >
          >Cheers,
          >
          >Eliot
          >
          >
          >



          --
          No virus found in this outgoing message.
          Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
          Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.1 - Release Date: 03/06/2005


          Message Scanned by ClamAV on datalucid.com
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.