Yes, I'm not in Simon's league here--I know very little about TeX--so I'll defer to you two on this issue. Just try to make sure that the final algorithm will help us support the keep-* properties.
Thanks, Glen --- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks. I think this has only to do with the rules > to handle keeps and > breaks and how to resolve conflicts. I don't think, > however, that these > parts create a restriction which tells us what > page-breaking strategy to > pursue. We could probably run with a first-fit > strategy and still > fulfill the rules below if we accept a lot of > backtracking. But as Simon > suggested, this seems to be a poor approach. > > Keeps and breaks are only part of what a page > breaking algorithm has to > deal with. See [3]. > > [3] > http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/PageLayout/InfluencingFeatures > > On 02.03.2005 16:44:17 Glen Mazza wrote: > > I'm unsure here. My interpretation comes from two > > places: > > > > 1.) Section 4.8, the last paragraph of [1]: > > > > "The area tree is constrained to satisfy all break > > conditions imposed. ***Each keep condition must > also > > be satisfied***, except when this would cause a > break > > condition or a stronger keep condition to fail to > be > > satisfied." > > > > i.e., keep conditions need to be satisfied. > > > > 2.) The definitions of the three keep-[] > properties > > [2] each have a initial value of "auto", meaning > > "There are no keep-[] conditions imposed by this > > property." > > > > So by default, if the user does not explicitly > specify > > keep properties, e.g., > "keep-together.within-page", no > > text, pictures, etc. are to be kept together on > the > > same page, if they wouldn't already be so due to > > free-flowing (i.e., first-fit) text. Everything > would > > become free-flowing in order to obey the > stylesheet > > writer's specifications. > > > > Just my $0.02. > > > > Thanks, > > Glen > > > > [1] > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xsl-20011015/slice4.html#keepbreak > > > > [2] > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xsl-20011015/slice7.html#keep-together > > > > > > --- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Where did you find such a suggestion? I'd be > > > interested to know if > > > there's a hint in this direction in the spec. I > > > thought it was up to the > > > implementation to decide the strategy. > > > > > > I think the way we're now taking in our > discussion > > > suggests that we're > > > not going to do a first-fit strategy at all. If > > > we're really going down > > > the two-strategy path we'll probably end up with > a > > > best-fit strategy and > > > a total-fit or best-fit plus look-ahead. (See > > > Simon's list [1]) But > > > that's something we still need to figure out > > > together. > > > > > > > If we ever have multiple page-breaking options, it > can > > be a user-defined configuration switch. No > problem > > there. > > > > Glen > > > > > > > [1] > > > > http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/PageLayout > > > > > > On 02.03.2005 14:48:17 Glen Mazza wrote: > > > > Just a sanity check here, the XSL > specification > > > seems > > > > to suggest always the first-fit strategy for > page > > > > breaking *except* where keeps are explicitly > > > > specified. Am I correct here? And, if so, is > > > what > > > > you're planning going to result in an > algorithm > > > that > > > > will help us do this? > > > > > > > > > Jeremias Maerki > > > > > > > > > > Jeremias Maerki > >
