You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to fop-dev@xmlgraphics.apache.org by Manuel Mall <ma...@apache.org> on 2006/01/15 10:15:27 UTC
block-container compliance
Just stumbled across this on our compliance page. For block-container we
say in the compliance column for 0.91 'partial' but in the comment it
says '[0.91 beta] No known restrictions'.
Who is right?
Manuel
Re: block-container compliance
Posted by Manuel Mall <mm...@arcus.com.au>.
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:28 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Mostly a compliance issue. If you look at it from the XSL-1.1 POV,
> it's probably a bug, too. ATM, I'm unsure what to do. We probably
> need to verify that we understand the spec concerning the top/left
> properties on absolutely positioned block-containers correctly. I'm
> tempted to leave everything like it is for now.
>
I was just wondering if our documentation is consistent and if we should
capture this issue may be in a testcase or a bugzilla so we don't loose
track of it?
> On 15.01.2006 16:01:04 Manuel Mall wrote:
> > On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:40 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > > Probably the "partial" indicator. Please review the following
> > > thread:
> > > http://www.nabble.com/Preparing-for-the-first-release---Examples-
> > >t542 439.html#a1461388
> > >
> > > (especially the part where we realized that the spec changed in a
> > > backwards-incompatible way). At some point this will have to be
> > > looked at again.
> >
> > Interesting - is this a bug or a compliance issue - I don't quite
> > understand?
> >
> > > On 15.01.2006 10:15:27 Manuel Mall wrote:
> > > > Just stumbled across this on our compliance page. For
> > > > block-container we say in the compliance column for 0.91
> > > > 'partial' but in the comment it says '[0.91 beta] No known
> > > > restrictions'.
> > > >
> > > > Who is right?
> > >
> > > Jeremias Maerki
> >
> > Manuel
>
> Jeremias Maerki
Manuel
Re: block-container compliance
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch>.
Mostly a compliance issue. If you look at it from the XSL-1.1 POV, it's
probably a bug, too. ATM, I'm unsure what to do. We probably need to
verify that we understand the spec concerning the top/left properties on
absolutely positioned block-containers correctly. I'm tempted to leave
everything like it is for now.
On 15.01.2006 16:01:04 Manuel Mall wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:40 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> > Probably the "partial" indicator. Please review the following thread:
> > http://www.nabble.com/Preparing-for-the-first-release---Examples-t542
> >439.html#a1461388
> >
> > (especially the part where we realized that the spec changed in a
> > backwards-incompatible way). At some point this will have to be
> > looked at again.
> >
> Interesting - is this a bug or a compliance issue - I don't quite
> understand?
>
> > On 15.01.2006 10:15:27 Manuel Mall wrote:
> > > Just stumbled across this on our compliance page. For
> > > block-container we say in the compliance column for 0.91 'partial'
> > > but in the comment it says '[0.91 beta] No known restrictions'.
> > >
> > > Who is right?
> >
> > Jeremias Maerki
>
> Manuel
Jeremias Maerki
Re: block-container compliance
Posted by Manuel Mall <mm...@arcus.com.au>.
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 06:40 pm, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> Probably the "partial" indicator. Please review the following thread:
> http://www.nabble.com/Preparing-for-the-first-release---Examples-t542
>439.html#a1461388
>
> (especially the part where we realized that the spec changed in a
> backwards-incompatible way). At some point this will have to be
> looked at again.
>
Interesting - is this a bug or a compliance issue - I don't quite
understand?
> On 15.01.2006 10:15:27 Manuel Mall wrote:
> > Just stumbled across this on our compliance page. For
> > block-container we say in the compliance column for 0.91 'partial'
> > but in the comment it says '[0.91 beta] No known restrictions'.
> >
> > Who is right?
>
> Jeremias Maerki
Manuel
Re: block-container compliance
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <de...@jeremias-maerki.ch>.
Probably the "partial" indicator. Please review the following thread:
http://www.nabble.com/Preparing-for-the-first-release---Examples-t542439.html#a1461388
(especially the part where we realized that the spec changed in a
backwards-incompatible way). At some point this will have to be looked
at again.
On 15.01.2006 10:15:27 Manuel Mall wrote:
> Just stumbled across this on our compliance page. For block-container we
> say in the compliance column for 0.91 'partial' but in the comment it
> says '[0.91 beta] No known restrictions'.
>
> Who is right?
Jeremias Maerki