Traits again

["Peter B. West" <pb...@powerup.com.au>]

Victor Mote wrote:
> Glen Mazza wrote:
> 
...
> 
>>(2.) Just as an FYI, as to the issue of whether the
>>FO's themselves have traits--from our previous
>>discussion, you were saying that elements have
>>attributes, FOs have properties and Area Tree elements
>>have traits, I believe.  That fact is confirmed in the
>>second paragraph of the Ch. 3 of the spec[1].
>>However, somewhat confusingly, if you look at the
>>second, third, and fourth diagrams in 1.1.2,
>>Formatting[2], the spec also refers to traits as the
>>refined/finished properties of the "refined formatting
>>object tree".  So in some cases, they do consider
>>traits to be both at the finished FO tree and the area
>>tree.
>>
>>[1]
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xsl-20011015/slice3.html#fo-jc-intro
>>
>>
>>[2]
>>http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xsl-20011015/slice1.html#section-N74
> 
> 2-Formatting
> 
> I don't think I had noticed this before. It looks like the standard *does*
> consider the refined properties to be traits. Since a refined value in the
> FO Tree should be the same as the value used in the Area Tree, that makes
> some sense.

There is not a simple correspondence between properties and traits in 
all cases.  See my table 
http://xml.apache.org/fop/design/alt.design/traits.html for a summary of 
traits.  I can't recall whether it is complete, but I scoured the Rec 
for references, and put what I could find in there.

Peter
-- 
Peter B. West <http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html>