This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
RE: fo:inline vs. fo:wrapper
- From: DPawson at rnib dot org dot uk
- To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
- Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 14:23:03 +0100
- Subject: RE: [xsl] fo:inline vs. fo:wrapper
- Reply-to: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
> [I know I'm not the David you mean but...] I'd certainly _expect_ them
> to be broken. fo:inline is "inline" in the sense that an HTML
> <em> or a
> latex \textbf{...} is inline, it's used to change some properties of
> the text but the result is still part of the main text flow and takes
> part in line breaking etc.
Yep, can't argue with that logic.
so the inline is styled and added to the parent flow,
and laid out in 'lines' by the formatter.
<fo:inline keep-together.within-line="always">
Being the exception?
Regards David
(just to keep it all familiar :-)
-
NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is
confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the
intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use,
disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your
system.
RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any
attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it
cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are
transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.
Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email
and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of RNIB.
RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227
Website: http://www.rnib.org.uk
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list