On Oct 19, 2007, at 13:32, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
On Oct 18, 2007, at 19:23, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
I think I see your point. Basically you’re proposing a push
method (a LM
notifies its parent LM that it has a break-before) while mine is
a pull
method (a LM
Hi Andreas,
Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2007, at 19:23, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
>> I think I see your point. Basically you’re proposing a push method (a LM
>> notifies its parent LM that it has a break-before) while mine is a pull
>> method (a LM asks its children LMs if they have bre
Andreas L Delmelle schrieb:
Triggering layout sooner is the only way we are ever going to get FOP to
accept arbitrarily large tables, without consuming massive amounts of
heap.
It is little OT, but multipass would be another way - at the cost of
runtime and diskspace/-access (if the memory f
On Oct 18, 2007, at 19:23, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
OTOH, the above is semantically equivalent to (I think we had already
established that there should not be a double page-break here)
If the LMs would be guaranteed to receive the 'normalized' form, the
break-condition can be tested
Hi Andreas,
Andreas L Delmelle wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2007, at 12:13, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
>
> Hi Vincent
>
> Hope you still remember this one. Sorry about the late reply. Still
> catching up on some missed posts during the holidays.
Hope you still remember this one. Sorry about the late reply.
On Aug 2, 2007, at 12:13, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
Hi Vincent
Hope you still remember this one. Sorry about the late reply. Still
catching up on some missed posts during the holidays.
I’ve been thinking about the handling of keeps and breaks in tables
for
a while, and it seems to me that
Hi all,
Caution, long post ;-)
I’ve been thinking about the handling of keeps and breaks in tables for
a while, and it seems to me that improvements could be done in that
whole area. I’ll use break-before as an example but what I’ll be saying
applies to break-after and keeps as well.
Currentl
