<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<!DOCTYPE bugzilla SYSTEM "https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/page.cgi?id=bugzilla.dtd">

<bugzilla version="5.0.4"
          urlbase="https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/"
          
          maintainer="sysbot+bugzilla@w3.org"
>

    <bug>
          <bug_id>6276</bug_id>
          
          <creation_ts>2008-12-04 15:53:34 +0000</creation_ts>
          <short_desc>Breaks and Borders, Successive Break Contexts</short_desc>
          <delta_ts>2009-03-03 09:23:48 +0000</delta_ts>
          <reporter_accessible>1</reporter_accessible>
          <cclist_accessible>1</cclist_accessible>
          <classification_id>1</classification_id>
          <classification>Unclassified</classification>
          <product>XSLFO</product>
          <component>XSL-FO</component>
          <version>1.1</version>
          <rep_platform>All</rep_platform>
          <op_sys>All</op_sys>
          <bug_status>RESOLVED</bug_status>
          <resolution>INVALID</resolution>
          
          
          <bug_file_loc>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xsl-editors/2008AprJun/0003</bug_file_loc>
          <status_whiteboard></status_whiteboard>
          <keywords></keywords>
          <priority>P2</priority>
          <bug_severity>normal</bug_severity>
          <target_milestone>---</target_milestone>
          
          
          <everconfirmed>1</everconfirmed>
          <reporter name="Tony Graham">tgraham</reporter>
          <assigned_to name="Anders Berglund">alb.w3c</assigned_to>
          <cc>vhennebert</cc>
          
          <qa_contact name="Mailing list for comments on XSL (XSl-FO)">xsl-editors</qa_contact>

      

      

      

          <comment_sort_order>oldest_to_newest</comment_sort_order>  
          <long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>22681</commentid>
    <comment_count>0</comment_count>
    <who name="Tony Graham">tgraham</who>
    <bug_when>2008-12-04 15:53:34 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>From xsl-editors:

The following situations are not explicitly described by the XSL-FO 1.1
Recommendation and no consistent behaviour could be found among the
various implementations:

Given the following FO snippet:
    &lt;fo:block border-before-color=&quot;black&quot;
      border-before-style=&quot;double&quot;
      border-before-width=&quot;1pt&quot;&gt;
      &lt;fo:block break-before=&quot;page&quot;&gt;
         Some text.
      &lt;/fo:block&gt;
    &lt;/fo:block&gt;

If the outer block is not leading in the page-reference-area (does not
start a page), what is the expected rendering? Should the border-before
lie on page n and the inner block on page n+1:
    ______________  ______________
    |            |  |            |
    |  ...       |  | Some text. |
    | Content    |  |            |
    | before     |  |            |
    | ...        |  |            |
    |            |  |            |
    | ========== |  |            |
    |            |  |            |
    |____________|  |____________|

... or should both be found on page n+1?
    ______________  ______________
    |            |  |            |
    |  ...       |  | ========== |
    | Content    |  | Some text. |
    | before     |  |            |
    | ...        |  |            |
    |            |  |            |
    |            |  |            |
    |            |  |            |
    |____________|  |____________|

In other words: if the first child of an fo:block has a forced (page)
break, should this block still produce an empty area (that here will
hold a before border) on the current page, or should it be deferred to
the next page along with its childs area(s)?


As another illustration of this issue, in the following case, and
assuming that we have a two-column page setup:
    &lt;fo:block break-before=&quot;column&quot; border-top=&quot;1pt solid red&quot;&gt;
      &lt;fo:block break-before=&quot;page&quot; border-top=&quot;1pt solid blue&quot;&gt;
        Some text.
      &lt;/fo:block&gt;
    &lt;/fo:block&gt;
Lets assume that when the outer block is reached we are inside the
first column of page n. Should (1) the red border be found at the top of
column #2 on page n, and the blue border at the top of column #1 on page
n+1? Or should (2) both borders be found at the top of column #1 on page
n+1?

If empty areas must be produced, then case (1) would win; otherwise this
would be case (2).


On a slightly different topic, there is a small uncertainty in cases
like the following:
    &lt;fo:block break-before=&quot;page&quot;&gt;
      &lt;fo:block break-before=&quot;page&quot;&gt;
        Some text.
      &lt;/fo:block&gt;
    &lt;/fo:block&gt;
Should an empty page be generated? In which case the outer block would
generate an empty area on page n+1, and the inner block its area(s) on
page n+2.
If not, then both blocks would generate their areas on page n+1. Both
behaviours are compliant with the Recommendation I think. But within the
FOP team we couldnt reach a consensus on which one should be
privileged.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>22790</commentid>
    <comment_count>1</comment_count>
    <who name="Tony Graham">tgraham</who>
    <bug_when>2008-12-18 12:24:25 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>The FO subgroup has considered your three cases:

1. There is nothing in the XSL 1.1 Recommendation that has an fo:block generating an empty area before jumping to the next page.

So the border-before follows the rest of the block to the next page.

2. For the same reason, both borders should go on column 1 of page n+1.

3. For the same reason: no, there should not be an empty page.

In accordance with the instructions at 
http://www.w3.org/XML/2008/01/xsl-fo-bugzilla.html#verify, please review the
proposed resolution carefully and let the Working Group know whether it&apos;s
acceptable or not.
</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>23026</commentid>
    <comment_count>2</comment_count>
    <who name="Tony Graham">tgraham</who>
    <bug_when>2009-01-13 12:44:21 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>Adding original poster as CC.  Response from original poster required to resolve bug report.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>24005</commentid>
    <comment_count>3</comment_count>
    <who name="Vincent Hennebert">vhennebert</who>
    <bug_when>2009-03-02 11:07:45 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>Thanks for the clarification. I believe it clears the uncertainties that were still existing in that area. The bug can be closed now.

Vincent Hennebert</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>24013</commentid>
    <comment_count>4</comment_count>
    <who name="Tony Graham">tgraham</who>
    <bug_when>2009-03-03 09:23:48 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>(In reply to comment #3)
&gt; Thanks for the clarification. I believe it clears the uncertainties that were
&gt; still existing in that area. The bug can be closed now.

Closing as &quot;invalid&quot; since that&apos;s the best we can do with this Bugzilla to close an issue that does not indicate a problem with the spec.</thetext>
  </long_desc>
      
      

    </bug>

</bugzilla>