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?
Thanks, Glen --- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd rather not work on HEAD directly because after > creating the basics > for the new mechanism the whole thing will probably > not work for some > time (probably 2-4 weeks). But I'd like to be able > to check in early so > people can review. I expect that the life time of > the branch will not > exceed 8 weeks. So there's almost no chance that > alt-design is repeated, > especially since the basic LM infrastructure will > not be altered big > time and it looks like we are all going in the same > direction for the > new page-breaking. It's clear that it has to be done > and it seems to be > moveing in the direction of a derived Knuth > approach. It's much like the > migration to the Knuth line breaking and it's mostly > the block-level LMs > that will be affected. People can continue to work > on HEAD during that > time as long as nothing serious is altered in the > block-level LMs which > would make merging difficult. > > Before I can kick off we need to agree to the > general approach for the > algorithm and clear a few details so we are > reasonably sure that it'll > work. Once we have that the plan for the branch > should not be a big deal > if we take the above into account. > > On 02.03.2005 13:16:42 Glen Mazza wrote: > > > > --- Chris Bowditch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > As for the plan to implement a new > page-breaking > > > mechanism: I've got to > > > > do it now. :-) I'm sorry if this may put some > > > pressure on some of you. > > > > I'm also not sure if I'm fit already to tackle > it, > > > but I've got to > > > > do it anyway. Since I don't want to work with > a > > > series of patches like > > > > you guys did earlier, I'd like to create a > branch > > > to do that on as soon > > > > as we've agreed on a strategy. Any objections > to > > > that? > > > > > > If we are going to branch the code for this then > we > > > need to make sure we have > > > a plan to merge the branch back once we are > > > confident in the new page breaking > > > algorithm. This plan (which should be agreed > before > > > branching takes place) > > > should include an acceptance procedure, e.g. > will a > > > single -1 be able to > > > prevent the code being merged back? We dont want > to > > > end up with another > > > alt-design, which eventually moved to source > > > forge!!! > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > Either way is fine with me, but Chris brings up a > very > > valid point. If you can tolerate and keep up with > my > > minor code housekeeping from time to time in some > of > > the layout managers (currently mostly PSLM), feel > free > > to work from HEAD directly instead if you wish. > > > > Glen > > > > Jeremias Maerki > >
