Re: [xsl] fo:inline vs. fo:wrapper

[Wendell Piez <wapiez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 08:13 AM 7/5/2002, David wrote:
> > But if the content of an inline is only pcdata, does the formatter still
> > break it David?
> > I thought not?
>
> [I know I'm not the David you mean but...] I'd certainly _expect_ them
> to be broken. fo:inline is "inline" in the sense that an HTML <em> or a
> latex  \textbf{...} is inline, it's used to change some properties of
> the text but the result is still part of the main text flow and takes
> part in line breaking etc.

That's what I thought, and as he said the other David (T.) has told me 
he'll look at the code, which I'm grateful for since I have little doubt 
the explanation lies there; my guess is that Dave #2 (P.) is looking at the 
same part of the spec which I saw (and which I'm confused by) which is why 
I got you all involved....
:-<

Fortunately for me I don't have the code on the system I'm on today so I 
can't embarrass myself just yet.

In fact it'll be Monday before I can get the offending code to David, so we 
may have to leave it at "Wendell has confused himself (and maybe David)" 
until then, even while I concur that that's what you (David), David and I 
all agree on what the behavior should be (and really David too I bet); it's 
only how to get it.

Cheers!
Wendell


___&&__&_&___&_&__&&&__&_&__&__&&____&&_&___&__&_&&_____&__&__&&_____&_&&_
    "Thus I make my own use of the telegraph, without consulting
     the directors, like the sparrows, which I perceive use it
     extensively for a perch." -- Thoreau


XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list