FOs. Dark places.

Hello.

Well - there is plenty of such and we are preparing the list. For now:

ISSUE 1.

3.6.18 URI
A sequence of characters conforming to a URI value as specified in the URI
specification.
Ed. Note: This should refer to the proper specification.

If following  all possible documents including CSS WD e t.c. it appears that
you should  use

<fo:inline-graphic href="url('Images/teddy.jpg')"/>

but not

<fo:inline-graphic href="Images/teddy.jpg"/>

a. Is that right?
b. Is there any way to get "reference to the proper specification" ?

ISSUE 2.

pix-em are mentioned in the WD ( in one place) :

Issue (pix-em): Are we going to handle pixels and ems as the value of a
function?

but are *not* defined like pica, mm e t.c.

Would be nice to get undestanding on what is the status of those units.

( Things like that  make our FO Validator crazy - we are now
introducing the special  value 'UNCLEAR' reporting : WD is unclear
on this value / attribute / element ).

Rgds.Paul.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 paul@xxxxxxxxx                XMLTube
 http://www.renderx.com Perl/JavaConnector
 http://www.pault.com   PerlApplicationServer
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=




 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list