Subject: Re: [xsl] position= and blocks (was And operator usage in XSL) From: "john farrow" <fomailinglist@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 10:15:34 +1200 |
Hi Eliot My reading of 7.5.1 in the spec about absolute-position was that the block-container was offset from the containing area, not the containing reference area, although what you say about a block not establishing a reference area makes sense. In 7.2 the "containing block" is described as the nearest ancestor block area which is not a line area, and in the definition of "left" in 7.5.5. the offset specified by left is said to be from the "containing block", which I take to mean the immediate parent block, not the reference area. I have the feeling I am missing something - can you point me to somewhere else in the spec where it says a block is positioned relative to the containing reference area as opposed to the containing area ? Thanks John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eliot Kimber" <ekimber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <xsl-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 9:46 AM Subject: Re: [xsl] position= and blocks (was And operator usage in XSL) > john farrow wrote: > > > Thats for the info Eliot. > > > > I have been looking at this and came up with this to place the two blocks > > over one another: > > > > <fo:block id="outer"> > > <fo:block-container absolute-position="absolute"> > > <fo:block>A</fo:block> > > </fo:block-container> > > <fo:block>B</fo:block> > > </fo:block> > > > > I think (please correct me if I am wrong) only one block-container is > > necessary, and it will be positioned relative to its containing area (with > > id="outer") so the two blocks will be over each other, and only the second > > fo:block is in the normal flow. > > This only coincidently works in your test because the block "outer" > happens to be the first block on the page. > > Unfortunately, block-containers are positioned relative to the nearest > containing reference area, which in this case is the pages region-body. > > fo:block does not establish a reference area so there's no way for > block-container to be positioned relative to it. > > In your test, if you put a block before what is now the first block > you'll see what I mean. > > Cheers, > > E. > -- > W. Eliot Kimber > Professional Services > Innodata Isogen > 9030 Research Blvd, #410 > Austin, TX 78758 > (512) 372-8122 > > eliot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > www.innodata-isogen.com
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] position= and blocks (was, Eliot Kimber | Thread | Re: [xsl] position= and blocks (was, Eliot Kimber |
Re: [xsl] Trouble using recursion t, Wendell Piez | Date | [xsl] embedding xsl within javascri, Rob Bradley |
Month |