[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] style property defaults
Dave Pawson wrote: > Are the language elements not an illogical mix? > font-name and font-name-asian might be illogical in one document? > > style:shadow and text:shadow? > > fo:margin and fo:margin-top etc? > > padding and padding-right (basically the shortform attributes and the > longer forms) > > Doubtful if it will impact defaults, but writing mode tblr then > setting some asiatic > script that required tbrl etc? Those are interesting points... The script specific settings are not mutually exclusive. They allow to select a font based on the script type, so the same paragrapg can use a different font for Chinese (asian script type) text than it uses for Arabic (complex script type). The overall feasibility of default fonts however is something that I am not sure about. There is no text:shadow, so I assume you mean fo:text-shadow, which is in fact something different than style:shadow. The former controls a shadow effect for characters, while the latter controls the shadow of an object (which may contain characters with another shadow effect), e.g. a page or a frame. The default for both of these should be to have no shadow. The short forms probably should not get a default. Their default would rather be reflected by the defaults of their individual components. I am not sure about the writing directions, but I think our defaults are OK as long as they are consistent. In general, whenever there is potential for conflicting attributes we must make a choice and write that down in the spec. From an interoperability point of view, an application is free to disagree with out choice as long as it says so in the files it produces. Bests, Lars
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]