> if you look at the DTD attached to the April WD, you can 
> see that we have borrowed our definition from there.
> 
> This is yet another case of internal contradiction in the WD;
> in this case, we have kept the less restrictive of the two 
> contrasting readings. The reason is that fo:inline-sequence
> is conceived as the most generic of the inlines; in this
> logic, it cannot have less children than fo:simple-link
> (which is permitted to have %block-level children both
> in the DTD and in the text).
> 
> Thank you for your mentioning the fact; we will soon update 
> the DTD, and point this discrepancy out in the comments.
> 
> Rgds.Paul.
> 
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>  paul@xxxxxxxxx   www.renderx.com   www.pault.com
>  XMLTube * Perl/JavaConnector * PerlApplicationServer
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> 
> 
> > Hello Paul,
> > 
> >  I'm studying your XSL/FO DTD.
> >  I have a question:
> > 
> > you write
> > 
> > <!ELEMENT fo:inline-sequence (
> >   #PCDATA   |
> > %inlines;    |
> > %block-level;
> > )*>
> > 
> > but in WD of April I can read:
> > 
> > "The fo:inline-sequence flow object may have any inline formatting objects
> > or PCDATA as its children."
> > 
> > Why have you written %block-level; in the definition of fo:inline-sequence ?
> > 



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