fo:folio-prefix (and other) content

Dear Editors:

This question applies at least to fo:folio-prefix,
fo:folio-suffix, but also
seems to apply to fo:index-page-number-prefix,
fo:index-page-number-suffix,
fo:index-page-citation-list-separator, and
fo:index-page-citation-range-separator.

Each of these objects has the following content model:
    (#PCDATA | %inline;)*.

The question: From whom do the child objects inherit
properties? The use of
the term "static" for some of these seems to imply
that they inherit
normally, that is, by reference to their ancestors in the
tree. However,
that seems unlikely. It is easy, for example, to imagine an
fo:page-number-citation with a 12-point
"Glossary-" prefix surrounded by
10-point text in a footnote. Am I correct to assume that
instead this
content should be "grafted" in a manner similar to
the way that fo:marker
content inherits from the fo:retrieve-marker that it
replaces? Or would the
fo:page-number-citation need to explicitly set the font-size
to the correct
value?

In any case, I think an explicit statement in the
Recommendation addressing
this issue for each of these objects would be helpful.

Thank you in advance for your help.

Victor Mote
The FOray Project www.foray.org

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.10/908 - Release
Date: 7/19/2007
6:10 PM
 

Dear Editors:

I have an additional question pertinent to this thread. The
content models
for fo:folio-prefix and fo:folio-suffix seem to be
inconsistent with the
"Areas" description for fo:page-number,
fo:page-number-citation, and
fo:page-number-citation-last. (A similar issue may exist for
the
index-related formatting objects as well, but I can't yet
see for sure).

Each of these "Areas" descriptions indicates that
the object "generates and
returns a single normal inline-area". If this is true,
then it seems that no
block-level objects should be allowed as descendants of
fo:folio-prefix and
fo:folio-suffix. Although block-level objects are currently
prohibited as
immediate descendants (children), they would currently be
permitted in
succeeding generations as children of fo:basic-link,
fo:inline-container,
etc.

On the other hand, if block-level descendants are permitted,
then I think
those objects needs to be have an "Areas"
description similar to that for
fo:inline, that is: "... generates one or more normal
inline-areas. The
[object] returns these areas together with any normal
block-areas ...
returned by the children of the [object]."

Of course, I may misunderstand something here instead, in
which case any
comments that might set me straight would be appreciated.
Thank you again.

Victor Mote

> This question applies at least to fo:folio-prefix, 
> fo:folio-suffix, but also seems to apply to 
> fo:index-page-number-prefix,
fo:index-page-number-suffix, 
> fo:index-page-citation-list-separator, and 
> fo:index-page-citation-range-separator.
> 
> Each of these objects has the following content model:
>     (#PCDATA | %inline;)*.
> 
> The question: From whom do the child objects inherit 
> properties? The use of the term "static" for
some of these 
> seems to imply that they inherit normally, that is, by

> reference to their ancestors in the tree. However, that
seems 
> unlikely. It is easy, for example, to imagine an 
> fo:page-number-citation with a 12-point
"Glossary-" prefix 
> surrounded by 10-point text in a footnote. Am I correct
to 
> assume that instead this content should be
"grafted" in a 
> manner similar to the way that fo:marker content
inherits 
> from the fo:retrieve-marker that it replaces? Or would
the 
> fo:page-number-citation need to explicitly set the
font-size 
> to the correct value?
> 
> In any case, I think an explicit statement in the 
> Recommendation addressing this issue for each of these

> objects would be helpful.