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 "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de> on 2002/05/05 18:33:55 UTC
Border properties
Hello,
I tried to make something out of bug 684. Again, after
reading the spec in depth, I'm nearly biting pieces off
my keyboard.
In the tables.fo examples, the left edge of the table
content rectangle is the same as the edge of the reference
area, and left border (should I use "start edge border"?)
is tacked on so that it extends outside the reference area.
The upper and lower border, however, do not overlap previous
or following blocks, as expected.
Well 4.4.1 says
the start-edge of its allocation-rectangle ... offset from it
inward by a distance equal to the block-area's start-indent
plus its start-intrusion-adjustment (as defined below)
minus its border-start, padding-start, and space-start values...
given that the start-indent of the tables are zero (hopefully),
the behaviour regarding the border extending left beyond the
edge of the refernce area appears to be consistent with the spec,
albeit IMO a bit counter-intuitive, because not consistent with
what happens in BPD.
Now, what is the problem bug 684 complains about? Does it mean
the border in BPD should be handled similarly to what happens in
IPD? Or does he mean something else?
And, of course: is my understanding on how borders/padding should
be handled resonable? I feel very confused.
BTW what happens if both start-indent and margin-start were
defined on the same block area?
J.Pietschmann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Border properties
Posted by Jeremias Maerki <je...@outline.ch>.
I think I remember what was (!) wrong: There was a time where FOP
displayed the table(s) on page 6 of table.fo in the following manner:
+-------
|bad
+-------
+------
|bad
+------
+------
|bad
+------
+------
|bad
+------
The left indentation of each consecutive table (!) was incremented by
exactly the left border width of the previous table. That bug was in FOP
for quite a few months! I don't know anymore who fixed it in the end. So
I'm going to mark the bug as closed for you.
> The problem remains:
> >>Now, what is the problem bug 684 complains about?
>
> I still have no idea: is the problem fixed or not? For
> a start, I'm not quite sure what the problem reporter
> meant, because I've never seen tables.fo rendered by
> an older FOP version. I have to say it looks ok for me,
> but then I have missed important things before.
Cheers,
Jeremias Märki
mailto:jeremias.maerki@outline.ch
OUTLINE AG
Postfach 3954 - Rhynauerstr. 15 - CH-6002 Luzern
Tel. +41 41 317 2020 - Fax +41 41 317 2029
Internet http://www.outline.ch
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: Border properties
Posted by "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>.
Arved,
thanks for the explanations. I still find it confusing
that in the following (default western script) the left
visible edges would not line up:
<fo:block>stuff</fo:block>
<fo:block border-style="solid" border-width="5mm">More
stuff </fo:block>
In order to have it line up, the start-indent has to be
set to 5mm. This, well, sucks. I'm pretty sure there are
other who'll be confused too.
Is this some CSS inheritance I have missed?
> I took a quick look at table.fo (the FO) and I think this will probably help
> out. I have to admit if there is one area of the spec that I am not
> particularly familiar with it is tables - in this case I don't think there
> is any weirdness involved stemming from table border properties.
Well, table borders apparently are handled the same way
as ordinary block borders, i experimented a bit. This
appears to be consistent.
The problem remains:
>>Now, what is the problem bug 684 complains about?
I still have no idea: is the problem fixed or not? For
a start, I'm not quite sure what the problem reporter
meant, because I've never seen tables.fo rendered by
an older FOP version. I have to say it looks ok for me,
but then I have missed important things before.
J.Pietschmann
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org
RE: Border properties
Posted by Arved Sandstrom <Ar...@chebucto.ns.ca>.
Comments intermingled.Default reference orientation and lr-tb writing mode
assumed.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:j3322ptm@yahoo.de]
> Sent: May 5, 2002 1:34 PM
> To: fop dev
> Subject: Border properties
>
> Hello,
> I tried to make something out of bug 684. Again, after
> reading the spec in depth, I'm nearly biting pieces off
> my keyboard.
> In the tables.fo examples, the left edge of the table
> content rectangle is the same as the edge of the reference
> area, and left border (should I use "start edge border"?)
> is tacked on so that it extends outside the reference area.
What it really boils down to is, the start-indent and end-indent are
content-rectangle to content-rectangle distances. If the start-indent is
zero then borders and padding and space are outside the content rectangle of
the reference area. Similarly for end-indent.
> The upper and lower border, however, do not overlap previous
> or following blocks, as expected.
I would not expect this - see below. At least not with initial values.
> Well 4.4.1 says
> the start-edge of its allocation-rectangle ... offset from it
> inward by a distance equal to the block-area's start-indent
> plus its start-intrusion-adjustment (as defined below)
> minus its border-start, padding-start, and space-start values...
> given that the start-indent of the tables are zero (hopefully),
> the behaviour regarding the border extending left beyond the
> edge of the refernce area appears to be consistent with the spec,
> albeit IMO a bit counter-intuitive, because not consistent with
> what happens in BPD.
The treatment is different; there is no BPD counterpart to start-indent and
end-indent. The separation between content-rectangles is determined by
padding+border+space (before & after).
Borders and padding are <length-conditional> values so unless they are at
the leading or trailing edge of a reference area they will definitely have
the specified <length>. None of them are negative. The spaces _can_ be
negative so this is the sole mechanism by which areas (including borders &
padding) can overlap (and space-specifier resolution is involved of course).
> Now, what is the problem bug 684 complains about? Does it mean
> the border in BPD should be handled similarly to what happens in
> IPD? Or does he mean something else?
> And, of course: is my understanding on how borders/padding should
> be handled resonable? I feel very confused.
Join the club. :-) I constantly remind myself of what the definitions really
mean in simple language. I also try to minimize use of allocation
rectangles - I understand the concept but find it confusing.
> BTW what happens if both start-indent and margin-start were
> defined on the same block area?
margin-* properties are absolute only (top, bottom, left, right). In any
case, according to 5.3.2 and 5.3.1 the absolute properties take precedence.
margin-left if explicitly specified has priority over start-indent.
I took a quick look at table.fo (the FO) and I think this will probably help
out. I have to admit if there is one area of the spec that I am not
particularly familiar with it is tables - in this case I don't think there
is any weirdness involved stemming from table border properties.
Regards,
Arved
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: fop-dev-help@xml.apache.org