let's step back a minute; what was the problem you were trying to solve? what was broken? how did your change fix it?

if you made this change just because you think instanceof Inline should return false on a BasicLink, then this change would seem gratuitous

it is wholly reasonable that BasicLink may share the implementation of Inline as previously held; your change required you to copy/paste existing code from Inline into BasicLink and to alter InlineLayoutManager for no purpose other than accommodating your change

IMO you should revert the change

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Peter Hancock <peter.hancock@gmail.com> wrote:
By ancestor I refer to the relationship with respect to the fo:
element hierarchy: Since the definition of fo:basic-link does not
depend upon fo:inline, we cannot conclude that fo:basic-link is an
fo:inline.

The parameter entity "%inline;" refers to inline-level fo elements,
fo:inline and fo:basic-link being members, and this is now reflected
on the FOP FO object hierarchy, where Inline and BasicLink extend
InlineLevel

Have I understood the recommendation correctly, or have I missed anything?

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> i'm not sure what you mean by 'ancestor', since containment relation is not
> at issue here;
> your argument is counter to the definition of the parameter entity %inline;
> defined in XSL 1.1 Section 6.2
>
> The parameter entity, "%inline;" in the content models below, contains the
> following formatting objects:
>
>      bidi-override
>      character
>      external-graphic
>      instream-foreign-object
>      inline
>      inline-container
>      leader
>      page-number
>      page-number-citation
>      page-number-citation-last
>      scaling-value-citation
>      basic-link
>      multi-toggle
>      index-page-citation-list
>
> i believe you should first restore the previous state of affairs, and then,
> if you wish to continue making the case that it is not inline, take it up
> with the group and get consensus before making what appears to be a possibly
> unjustified architectural change
>
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Peter Hancock <peter.hancock@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> While fo:basic-link and fo:inline are both inline level elements, one
>> is not the ancestor of the other and so FOP's model of the FO elements
>> should reflect this, I believe.
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:43 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>> > if I recall, I need this inheritance (from Inline) to work in the
>> > complex
>> > script branch as well
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Simon Pepping <spepping@leverkruid.eu>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:18:54AM -0000, phancock@apache.org wrote:
>> >> > Author: phancock
>> >> > Date: Thu Sep 29 10:18:53 2011
>> >> > New Revision: 1177251
>> >> >
>> >> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1177251&view=rev
>> >> > Log:
>> >> > Fix FO tree hierarchy: BasicLink shouldn't inherit from Inline
>> >>
>> >> Why? A basic-link is an inline object which generates inline areas.
>> >>
>> >> Simon
>> >
>> >
>
>