John R. Software wrote:
> Jean-Fran=E7ois Michaud wrote:
>
> > This revision indicator simply looks like a border to the left of the
> > page, but is always located at the same distance from the edge of the
> > page. Ouputing a border on the containing block doesn't work because
> > the blocks are indented within sections (everything in FO is
> > represented as lists within lists to facilitate indentation of sections
> > and subsections). Does anyone have an idea how I can accomplish this?
>
> They seem to imply in the FOP FAQ that there is no problem using
> fo:border to do sidebars.

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer when I meant it doesn't work.
Creating a left border to indicate a revision change works but what I
meant is that its not an option in the context of using
"fo:list-block"s to indent all my content because the requirement is
that the revision indicator should always be located at the same
distance from the left edge of the page independently from the current
hanging list item indent. I use fo:list-block everywhere.

I could forget about using fo:list-block altogether to generate the
required sections/subsections/subsubsections indent and potentially
wrap everything that can be revised with an fo:block in which case all
those fo:block wrappers would all be aligned to the left of the page
body. The real fun starts thought when you think about trying to align
the content of those blocks in corelation with the content of other
such "fo:block wrapper" blocks so that the indents of the underlying
entities remains coherent. For example, when say trying to reproduce
list indent behavior across the content of many of those revision
fo:block wrappers. It seems somewhat clumsy to me. Thats the only
potential solution I've seen so far. In the current context this
solution implies recoding most of the stylesheet.

>  http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/fo.html#fo-lines
>
> But.... they do not give an example of that actually being done.
>
> It has been a couple of years since I was really into FOP and XSL-FO.
> So I might have it wrong - but that seems doable.