Bug 53005 - wrapper is not a block item
Summary: wrapper is not a block item
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Fop - Now in Jira
Classification: Unclassified
Component: fo tree (show other bugs)
Version: 1.0
Hardware: PC Mac OS X 10.4
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: fop-dev
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-03-29 20:55 UTC by Alberto Simões
Modified: 2012-04-03 16:39 UTC (History)
0 users


Attachments
Generated FO file (50.77 KB, application/xml)
2012-04-02 20:04 UTC, Alberto Simões 		Details
Original DocBook document (1.16 KB, application/xml)
2012-04-02 20:05 UTC, Alberto Simões 		Details
minimal FO test file (718 bytes, text/xml)
2012-04-02 21:59 UTC, Glenn Adams 		Details
Show Obsolete (2) View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Alberto Simões 2012-03-29 20:55:07 UTC 
Was getting this error:

javax.xml.transform.TransformerException: org.apache.fop.fo.ValidationException: "fo:inline" is not a valid child of "fo:block"!  (See position 1870:716)

After talking with the folks in the docbook XSLT mailing list, they helped me finding out that:

""
Based on the .fo file that Alberto sent to me, this appears to be a bug in FOP 1.0.  I can reproduce it by putting an indexterm inside an inline element inside a footnote. In general,  an indexterm generates an fo:wrapper element to hold the indexterm id marker.  When this fo:wrapper is inside an fo:inline, it appears to confuse FOP, but only when inside a footnote. Removing the fo:wrapper removes the error.  All other locations with that construction do not generate an error.  Two other XSL-FO processors did not produce an error.
""

Somebody added:

""
FYI, until recently indexterms were not allowed inside footnotes at all:
  http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/footnote.html
They are allowed with v5.1:
  http://www.docbook.org/tdg51/en/html/footnote.html
""

Thank you,
Alberto
Comment 1 Pascal Sancho 2012-03-30 08:15:04 UTC 
Please,
can you:
 1/ reformulate short description matching FOP vocabulary (indexterm and docbook are not handled by FOP)?
 2/ attach a short XSL-FO (xml + xslt result) that demonstrates the issue?
Comment 2 Alberto Simões 2012-04-02 20:04:53 UTC 
Created attachment 28532 [details]
Generated FO file
Comment 3 Alberto Simões 2012-04-02 20:05:19 UTC 
Created attachment 28533 [details]
Original DocBook document
Comment 4 Alberto Simões 2012-04-02 20:08:01 UTC 
Hey,

Sorry for taking so much time, but I got some trouble on finding the portion that was giving trouble.

I attached the docbook file, and the generated fo file. I can't attach the XSLT files, as they are too many :)

Please let me know how/if I can help.

Thank you
Alberto
Comment 5 Glenn Adams 2012-04-02 21:56:38 UTC 
this bug is due to isBlockItem() returning true for wrapper

            } else if (!canHaveBlockLevelChildren && isBlockItem(nsURI, localName)) {
                invalidChildError(loc, getParent().getName(), nsURI, getName(),
                                  "rule.inlineContent");
            } else {

in particular isBlockItem() returns true for block *or* neutral, so this condition needs to be further qualified as:

            } else if (!canHaveBlockLevelChildren && isBlockItem(nsURI, localName)
                         && !isNeutralItem(nsURI, localName)) {
Comment 6 Glenn Adams 2012-04-02 21:57:14 UTC 
(In reply to comment #5)
> this bug is due to isBlockItem() returning true for wrapper
> 
>             } else if (!canHaveBlockLevelChildren && isBlockItem(nsURI,
> localName)) {
>                 invalidChildError(loc, getParent().getName(), nsURI, getName(),
>                                   "rule.inlineContent");
>             } else {
> 
> in particular isBlockItem() returns true for block *or* neutral, so this
> condition needs to be further qualified as:
> 
>             } else if (!canHaveBlockLevelChildren && isBlockItem(nsURI,
> localName)
>                          && !isNeutralItem(nsURI, localName)) {

see Inline.java:120
Comment 7 Glenn Adams 2012-04-02 21:59:28 UTC 
Created attachment 28534 [details]
minimal FO test file