Re: [Moderator Action] RE: block width="2in"

Dave Pawson <[email protected]> writes:

>>In the case of 'block' none of the height/width/*-progression-dimension
>>properties apply (Section 6.5.2).
>
> Yep. Noted.
>
>> If they did then we'd see them explicitly
>>mentioned, as we do for 'block-container' (Section 6.5.3). If we can't count
>>on at least this much in the spec then we may as well all pack up and go
>>home.

I'm not sure how to parse the above sentence.

"this much" == "the fact that height/width/*-progression-dimension do
not apply to block'

or

"this much" == "the fact that if they did the spec would mention them
explicitely"

?

> So the 'applies to all' statement on the property is false?

width: Applies to: all elements but non-replaced inline elements,
table-rows, and row groups

height: Applies to: all elements but non-replaced inline elements, table columns, and column groups

block-progression-dimension: Applies to: see prose [no fo:block mentioned]
inline-progression-dimension: Applies to: see prose [no fo:block mentioned]

> Some contradiction?

The boxes describing width and height are copied straight out of CSS2,
so I agree that it looks like a contradiction, but my opinion is that 
the list of properties that apply to an FO takes precedence over the text
in the boxes. 

> Max? Anyone else from the working group listening?
> Arbitration please.

This is my opinion, not the working group's.

> I'm going with 7.14.12 as the contra position.

I am not. For 'width' and 'height', below the box, it says [[XSL
modifications to the CSS definition: In XSL, this property is mapped
to either "inline-progression-dimension" or
"block-progression-dimension"]]

For those two properties there is no contradiction, as 7.14.1 says
"This property specifies the block-progression-dimension of the
content-rectangle for each area generated by this formatting object."

This doesn't specify which FO the property applies to so we can take
from the listed properties for fo:block that it doesn't apply.

Max.