https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46905
--- Comment #18 from Chris Bowditch <bowditch_ch...@hotmail.com> 2009-06-04 00:37:12 PST --- (In reply to comment #17) > (In reply to comment #16) > > This won't work. If keep-together.within-column="1" and > > keep-together.within-page="always" then a break must be completely > > forbidden at > > a page. Hinting penalties won't prevent that in every case, for example if > > the > > only feasible page break is at such a place. > OK, I thought so... > I had this working for strength "always", with the modified implementation for > Keep.compare() I suggested earlier (comment #4). Anyway, that case is easy. > The > more complicated case is keep-together.within-column="1" and on a nested block > .within-page="10". Both column-breaks and page-breaks are allowed, but the > page-breaks should preferably be made before/after the nested block. A > page-break in the nested block would be permitted only if its content does not > fit into one page. I think it is an acceptable limitation that keep-*.within-column works only for "always" It is already a big improvement on the current situation where this is treated as keep-*.within-page. <snip/> -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
