Hi Jeremias,  

I'll try that next year. I have quite a complicated table who should be kept 
together except if it spans more than a page. Speaking of tables:
Given a table with two rows, two columns, cell in first column spans both rows, 
is there a way to tell FOP: If there's a break between this two rows, repeat 
the content of the split cell on next pages? 

I read the specification, but I did not quite understand it. Always means 
"never break" and auto means "break, wenever you feel like it". But numbers 
would mean, a keep or break can influence other keeps or breaks. I can see a 
keep-with-next clash with a break-before or the other way round or a keep on a 
block clash with a break on a sub-block, but which strength does a "break 
because end of page/column/line is reached" have? Or a "break because otherwise 
it would not fit the page"?

Everything very complicated...

Regards,
 
Georg Datterl
 
------ Kontakt ------
 
Georg Datterl
 
Geneon media solutions gmbh
Gutenstetter Straße 8a
90449 Nürnberg
 
HRB Nürnberg: 17193
Geschäftsführer: Yong-Harry Steiert 

Tel.: 0911/36 78 88 - 26
Fax: 0911/36 78 88 - 20
 
www.geneon.de
 
Weitere Mitglieder der Willmy MediaGroup:
 
IRS Integrated Realization Services GmbH:    www.irs-nbg.de 
Willmy PrintMedia GmbH:                            www.willmy.de
Willmy Consult & Content GmbH:                 www.willmycc.de 
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[email protected]] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. Dezember 2008 12:43
An: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: W: AW: Keep-together.within-page in FOP 0.95

On 18.12.2008 12:10:27 Georg Datterl wrote:
> Hi Jeremias,
> 
> > <block keep-together.within-column="1">  <block>I use 30% 
> > height</block>  <block>I use 30% height</block>  <block>I use 50% 
> > height</block> </block> In this case, the 50% block is moved to the 
> > next page if the layout engine doesn't find a better solution, for 
> > example by keeping the first block on the previous page and keeping 
> > the latter two together. (all assuming those nested blocks are 
> > unbreakable for example by carrying a
> > keep-together.within-column="always")
> 
> So, without a keep-together.within-column, the sequence would be:
> most preferable break: after third block. (impossible, since 110%) 
> less preferable: after second block. (possible, if blocks before take 
> <= 40%) even less preferable: after first block. (possible, if blocks 
> before take 41% to 70%) even less preferable: before first block. 
> (possible, if blocks before take >71% )

It's difficult to say exactly that as this also depends on the surrounding 
content if any. A break before the first block will never happen if the content 
above is the only content in the document.

> => Meaning: fit as much as possible on the previous page

More or less, yes.

> So, with keep-together.within-column="1", the sequence would be (from your 
> description):
> most preferable break: after third block. (impossible, since 110%) 
> less preferable: after first block. (possible, if blocks before take 
> <= 70%) even less preferable: after second block. ( would only happen 
> if block2+block3 would use more than 100% and blocks before block1 
> would take <=40%) even less preferable: before first block. (possible, 
> if blocks before take >71% )

Hmmm. At least what you can say is that the most preferable break is after the 
third block. Whether then the break possibility after the first or second block 
is more preferable depends on the surrounding content.

> I don't understand why. 

I hope the above clears that up a bit. However, if you want an exact 
description of how this works I have to give you a pointer into the
spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl11/#keepbreak
That explains everything though maybe in a very technical way and without 
examples.

> Of course my example was buggy, I meant: keep-with-next, not keep-together. 

:-)

> What I was trying to say is: keep-with-next if in any way possible.
> Separate from next ONLY if both blocks together would never ever fit 
> on a page, since they take more than 100%.
> 
> <block> I use 30% height</block>
> <block keep-with-next="1"> I use 30% height </block>

I don't really like the use of the shorthand. That can lead to nasty 
side-effects, especially with keep-together.

> <block>I use 50% height</block>
> 
> would break before the second block, but

Yes.

> <block> I use 30% height</block>
> <block keep-with-next="1"> I use 30% height </block> <block>I use 80% 
> height</block>
> 
> would break after the second block. 

Yes.

<snip/>



Jeremias Maerki


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to