#504 An illogicality in styleDefDecl & styleDef

[John P. McCaskey]

styleDefDecl identifies a "formal definition language"

A legal value is "free" and it means "Informal free text description". So the formal language is informal.

The note says "If no formal definition language is supplied or implied, the default assumption is that CSS is in use."

This leads to the odd implication that if @scheme = "free", that is, if the scheme is informal not formal, then CSS is in use.

Shouldn't "css" and "xslfo" be possible values, with others allowed (wordperfect?, troff? :) ). Even is a user-defined formal language is specified, presumably that language has a name name.

[John P. McCaskey]

Should read: "Even IF a user-defined formal language is specified . . ."

[Martin Holmes]

I'm not really sure how "xslfo" could be a useful value; for all its rendering rules, XSL:FO uses CSS. The other components of XSL:FO are the XML wrappers defining blocks and spans of text, along with page-templates etc. Could you give an example of how XSL:FO could be used inside the @style attribute?

[John P. McCaskey]

I can't. I know nothing about XSL:FO.

[James Cummings]

Fixed in revision 11871; changing the attribute note to. "If no value for the @scheme attribute is provided, then the default assumption is that CSS is in use."

[Kevin Hawkins]

I know this was just implemented, but I would prefer changing "the default assumption is" to "the default assumption should be". We are not describing reality.

[Kevin Hawkins]

For the record, my suggestion was implemented by Martin at r11874.