Subject: Re: XSL:FO: Left ... Center ... Right From: "Nikolai Grigoriev" <grig@xxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 02:30:40 +0400 |
>But more importantly, I am very chary of table abuse. Is a three part >running footer really a *table*? Yes, it is to 99.9% of HTML coders, >but doesn't the political correctness lobby chide them for this dismal >attitude? I suppose its closer to a table than a list.... As for the tables blamed by the lobby, don't give too much importance to names. For some historical reasons, an element that generates three adjacent area-containers in the inline-progression-direction is called "a table" (or, rather, <fo:table> ;-)). If the functionality is exactly what you want, does it really matter what is the label stuck to it? I wonder By the way, in a real stylesheet you can hardly make assumptions of how long the text in the header will be. And if you plan to align more than five-character words, the following happens to different solutions: - inline-rules and long spaces will generate several lines, breaking every alignment; - absolutely positioned inlines will overlap (since absolutely positioned elements have no impact on the alignment of each other). It seems to me that, for robustness' sake, we should create three consecutive block-areas for left, center, and right part. You can create them by placing three fo:inline-included-containers on the line (one more solution ;-)) or by absolutely aligned fo:blocks (yet another solution ;-)). But, won't it be simpler to use tables? XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: XSL:FO: Left ... Center ... Ri, Nikolai Grigoriev | Thread | Re: XSL:FO: Left ... Center ... Ri, Stephen Deach |
Re: XSL:FO: Left ... Center ... Ri, Sebastian Rahtz | Date | Re: XSL:FO: Left ... Center ... Ri, Stephen Deach |
Month |