Subject: FO DTD. Internal contradiction in the WD From: "Paul Tchistopolskii" <paul@xxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 18:49:56 -0700 |
> if you look at the DTD attached to the April WD, you can > see that we have borrowed our definition from there. > > This is yet another case of internal contradiction in the WD; > in this case, we have kept the less restrictive of the two > contrasting readings. The reason is that fo:inline-sequence > is conceived as the most generic of the inlines; in this > logic, it cannot have less children than fo:simple-link > (which is permitted to have %block-level children both > in the DTD and in the text). > > Thank you for your mentioning the fact; we will soon update > the DTD, and point this discrepancy out in the comments. > > Rgds.Paul. > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > paul@xxxxxxxxx www.renderx.com www.pault.com > XMLTube * Perl/JavaConnector * PerlApplicationServer > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= > > > > Hello Paul, > > > > I'm studying your XSL/FO DTD. > > I have a question: > > > > you write > > > > <!ELEMENT fo:inline-sequence ( > > #PCDATA | > > %inlines; | > > %block-level; > > )*> > > > > but in WD of April I can read: > > > > "The fo:inline-sequence flow object may have any inline formatting objects > > or PCDATA as its children." > > > > Why have you written %block-level; in the definition of fo:inline-sequence ? > > XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
ANN: Oracle XML Parser for Java v2., Mark Scardina | Thread | [no subject], Steven Livingstone |
Where is XT? (was: Re: Merging two, Terris | Date | Re: Merging two documents, Terris |
Month |