On 30.07.2005 13:07:40 Andreas L Delmelle wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Jul 29, 2005, at 23:25, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > Strike that. Just found a mean case where my quick hack breaks. Back to > > frame one and a half. It's going to be a bit more difficult. > > FWIW: It occurred to me that, with a break-before="page" on the > fo:block in the second column/second row, the result you initially > posted would be correct... at least, I think so :-/ > This made me wonder if the rule has to be formulated differently. > > Let's make it: until we reach the first grid unit in the row that has a > box that actually causes a break --either through a forced break or > imposed by bpd constraints-- all break possibilities in previous grid > units are ONLY possibilities. > Those possibilities need to be taken into consideration, if and only if: > 1) the breaking grid unit has previous boxes that still fit on the page > 2) or the break was forced > (or = inclusive)
Right, important point. I forgot about the hard breaks. My quick hack would also have failed with those. But I already have another idea how to fix this without too much effort. I'll try that on Tuesday when my brain isn't preoccupied with the weekend and the national holiday on Monday. :-) > For the following grid units in the same row, we have enough > information to decide if we need to break before their first box or > not, so they do not necessarily have to have contributed their 'one > box'. > > So, IIC, the grid units in a row each have to contribute ALL of their > boxes until the first real break (more than a possible break). In the > presented case, this comes down to the same thing as saying that they > have to contribute one box, but that was a simplified case for > demonstration purposes. > > If implementing the rule that way is possible, I think this would hold > for most cases. I agree. > HTH! Thanks. It does. Jeremias Maerki
