On Thursday 13 July 2006 22:09, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > What I tried to propose is mostly just that. Implementing some > shortcut that at least treats all integer values differently from > "always" with a constant penalty value. That gives FOP the > opportunity to relax while still allowing the rather intuitive > "always" not to relax thus providing both kinds of behaviours. > Relaxing "always" might not be that intuitive/expected for some > people. Introducing a configuration option makes the whole thing just > more difficult. This way you can just tell the user to use some > integer instead of always if he wants the keeps to be relaxable. > > Treating integer values differently from "always" is the half way to > the full implementation but still can be implemented with reasonable > effort without compromising any future improvements. >
I agree with Jeremias here. This seems a sensible way forward. If down the track we have users screaming for "always" to be made more 'relaxed' the issue of making this configurable can be revisited. Manuel > The only problem I see here is that DocBook may not allow that kind > of control over the keep values. For everyone else, that's just a > quick search and replace in the stylesheet. > > On 13.07.2006 15:13:59 Chris Bowditch wrote: > > Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > Fabio Gianetti made a good comment [1]. I answered like this [2]. > > > I'm currently thinking about how best to implement this. To keep > > > it simple for the moment, we could implement "always" like before > > > but remove/disable the overflow recovery I've implemented. That > > > way, the content would again overflow. All integer values could > > > be implemented as penalty=999 for the moment (thus allow some > > > relaxing), at least until we have a good scheme about mapping > > > integer keeps to penalty values like we started to discuss some > > > time ago. However, this would disable the possibility to shove an > > > element ahead n pages in the hope that there will be a page that > > > the element fits on (the purpose of the overflow recovery). But > > > that will be a very rare thing anyway, so I don't think there's > > > any harm. Any objections? > > > > Well until integer values for keeps are implemented I object to > > implementing always such that it generates overflow on a page. The > > ability to error or clip gives little comfort to users either. > > > > Personally I prefer the Renderer to relax the > > keep-together="always" if required. Fabio seems to suggest in his > > post that it is implementation dependent what happens in this > > situation. Maybe we could have a configuration option? > > > > <snip/> > > > > Chris > > Jeremias Maerki
