Re: Tagging fo:blocks as artifacts

Hi Holger,

I agree the easiest solution would be to mark the unwanted blocks as 
artifacts. Its a shame that FOP only supports role="artifact" on 
fo:table-header and fo:table-footer :( If you were to submit a patch on 
an enhancement it would be welcomed. I think this would be a good 
improvement to FOP's accessibility support.

Thanks,

Chris

On 05/04/2017 21:41, Holger Bast wrote:
> Hi there,
> I'm trying to use fop (2.1) to generate accessible pdf files. My document source is docbook5 that is transformed to
> xsl-fo and then processed with fop to pdf.
> The official docbook5-xsl files often generate deep nested fo:block structures like the following example:
>
> <fo:block>
>     <fo:block>
>        <fo:block ...>
>           <fo:block keep-with-next.within-column="always">
>              <fo:block ...>
>                 <fo:marker marker-class-name="section.head.marker">Level 1</fo:marker>
>                 <fo:block font-size="20.735999999999997pt">1.1. Level 1</fo:block>
>              </fo:block>
>           </fo:block>
>        </fo:block>
>     </fo:block>
>     <fo:block/>
> </fo:block>
>
> This code also generates a deep nested p(aragraph) structure in the pdf file, because every fo:block automatically is
> tagged as paragraph. I'm trying to evaluate different approaches to get rid of this nested structure:
>
> 1) better code generation
> That's the most obvious point but the docbook-xsl files are quite complex and I think this goal is hard to achieve.
>
> 2) tagging the unwanted block as 'artifacts'
> Is there a way to tag fo:blocks as kind of artifact, so that they are not recognized being part of the document
> structure? The role="artifact" can only be applied to 'wrapper' and 'static-content' structures. An explicit way to
> deactivate tagging for dedicated structure elements would be nice and the easiest way for me.
>
> 3) merging of the fo:blocks
> Another way would be merging all nested fo:blocks that only contain another fo:block element as child together that only
> one is left which can correctly be rendered. This goal is not easy to achieve, because you must have an eye on the
> attributes; addition/subtraction of indents and so on.
>
> 4) ??
>
> Did I forget something? Are there other ways to get rid of this nested structure?
>
> Thanks, Holger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
> .
>