xmlgraphics-fop-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vincent Hennebert <vhenneb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: fo:table breaks in fo:block-container
Date Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:01:37 GMT
Hi Andreas,

Andreas Delmelle wrote:
> On 07 Sep 2009, at 18:11, Andreas Delmelle wrote:
> 
>> On 07 Sep 2009, at 12:22, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
>>
>>> This is an interesting interpretation. There is some discussion about
>>> that on the following bug report:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46160
>>>
>>> One could return the question, taking the point of view of the children
>>> elements of the rotated block-container: when should that content be
>>> broken over to the next page? When its block-progression-dimension
>>> exceeds the available space in block-progression-direction.
>>
>> No. When it makes the block-container break to the next page, hence
>> when its inline-progression-dimension exceeds the
>> block-progression-dimension of the block-container.

Do you have pointers to the Recommendation where the above is stated?
I’ve been looking for some for a while and haven’t been able to find
any.

What I found however were strong indications, in the description of
fo:block-container, that the content inside a rotated block-container
should be broken over pages:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl11/#fo_block-container
“the reference-area may be larger than the viewport-area and this may
cause the ‘overflow’ property to operate.”
and
“The ‘repeat’ value of overflow can be used to generate multiple
viewport/reference pairs if this is desired rather than clipping or
scrolling.”


> Note that this should normally change with XSL-FO 2.0, where in the
> initial requirements (wish-list), there has been explicit demand to
> define such 'vertical' breaks.

If you’re thinking of what can be found under the following link:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-xslfo20-req-20080326/#N66228
then AFAIU that requirement is meant to address a different situation:
“In case a table is split over multiple pages and both the rows and
columns don’t fit a page...”
This is different to a table that doesn’t fit in the
block-progression-direction only, be it inside a rotated block or not.


> Fact remains: the block-progression-direction of the flow does not
> change at all due to the reference-orientation on the block-container.
> 
> Difficult to see why other implementations would provide a proprietary
> extension for this, if it's catered for by the Rec anyway...


Thanks,
Vincent

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscribe@xmlgraphics.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-help@xmlgraphics.apache.org


Mime
View raw message