This is the mail archive of the
xsl-list@mulberrytech.com
mailing list .
Re: fo:inline vs. fo:wrapper
- From: "J.Pietschmann" <j3322ptm at yahoo dot de>
- To: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
- Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 01:46:39 +0200
- Subject: Re: [xsl] fo:inline vs. fo:wrapper
- References: < <9B66BBD37D5DD411B8CE00508B69700F4F02FD@pborolocal.rnib.org.uk> <9B66BBD37D5DD411B8CE00508B69700F4F02FD@pborolocal.rnib.org.uk> <5.1.0.14.0.20020704185702.020bf828@earthlink.net>
- Reply-to: xsl-list at lists dot mulberrytech dot com
Wendell Piez wrote:
I'm wondering about (what may be) a fine point of FO semantics.
Is there something about fo:inline that prevents them from breaking
across lines?
No. Inlines can flow across several lines.
I'm prepared to use fo:wrapper to instigate momentary changes, say, into
an italic face -- but had supposed fo:inline was the right way.
The difference between fo:inline and fo:wrapper is that the
wrapper only holds inheritable properties for the areas
within, while the fo:inline generates areas. This means a
fo:inline can have a border, background, space-start and
space-end and padding and a few other bits, while a
fo:wrapper cannot. If you just want to change the font-style
to italic, it doesn't matter whether you use fo:wrapper or
fo:inline. The latter is more commonly used though.
J.Pietschmann
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list