Hi Jeremias, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > IMO, both possibilities in your example below would be correct. If the > keep-with-next is set on the table-row, it applies to all table-cells of > that row because table-row itself doesn't produce any areas. In both > your examples the table-cell produces an area (potentially with no > children, i.e. no text). The keep constraint doesn't have any effect on > the contents of the table-cell. Do I make any sense?
Definitely, and that’s also how I interpret it. But since keeps don’t apply to table-cell, I was wondering if keep on table-row shouldn’t be passed over directly to the cells’ children. But as table-cell does generate areas, our interpretation may be valid. But then I’m wondering why you can’t specify keeps on table-cell. And it may also be interesting to note that both XEP and XSL Formatter put some content from all the cells on the second page (second solution below). So I think I’ll still send a request for clarification. Thanks for your input, Vincent > On 21.02.2008 17:14:49 Vincent Hennebert wrote: >> Hi Guys, >> >> If anyone has any comment to make on this before I send another request >> for clarification to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> fo:table-row does not generate any area, so the text in section 4.8, >> “Keeps and Breaks” doesn’t really apply to this element. >> The question is: if keep-with-next is set on fo:table-row, shall we >> consider that this is equivalent to setting keep-with-next to the last >> child block of /every/ cell ending on this row, or that this is enough >> if at least one table-cell ending on this row is not trailing in the >> applicable reference area? >> >> Illustration: >> <fo:table-row keep-with-next="always"> >> <fo:table-cell> >> <fo:block>Cell 1.1 Line 1</fo:block> >> <fo:block>Cell 1.1 Line 2</fo:block> >> <fo:block>Cell 1.1 Line 3</fo:block> >> </fo:table-cell> >> <fo:table-cell> >> <fo:block>Cell 1.2 Line 1</fo:block> >> <fo:block>Cell 1.2 Line 2</fo:block> >> </fo:table-cell> >> </fo:table-row> >> <fo:table-row> >> <fo:table-cell> >> <fo:block>Cell 2.1 Line 1</fo:block> >> <fo:block>Cell 2.1 Line 2</fo:block> >> </fo:table-cell> >> <fo:table-cell> >> <fo:block>Cell 2.2 Line 1</fo:block> >> <fo:block>Cell 2.2 Line 2</fo:block> >> </fo:table-cell> >> </fo:table-row> >> >> Is the following rendering correct: >> _____________________________________ >> | | | >> | Cell 1.1 Line 1 | Cell 1.2 Line 1 | >> | Cell 1.1 Line 2 | Cell 1.2 Line 2 | >> >> --------------------------------------- Page break >> >> | Cell 1.1 Line 3 | | >> |_________________|_________________| >> | | | >> | Cell 2.1 Line 1 | Cell 2.2 Line 1 | >> | Cell 2.1 Line 2 | Cell 2.2 Line 2 | >> |_________________|_________________| >> >> >> or can it only be like the following: >> _____________________________________ >> | | | >> | Cell 1.1 Line 1 | Cell 1.2 Line 1 | >> >> --------------------------------------- Page break >> >> | Cell 1.1 Line 2 | Cell 1.2 Line 2 | >> | Cell 1.1 Line 3 | | >> |_________________|_________________| >> | | | >> | Cell 2.1 Line 1 | Cell 2.2 Line 1 | >> | Cell 2.1 Line 2 | Cell 2.2 Line 2 | >> |_________________|_________________| >> >> >> Personally I’d go with the first possibility. > > Jeremias Maerki -- Vincent Hennebert Anyware Technologies http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert http://www.anyware-tech.com Apache FOP Committer FOP Development/Consulting
