(Modifying the subject for archiving purpose.)

Hi Andreas,

2006/8/10, Andreas L Delmelle:
On Aug 10, 2006, at 16:25, Vincent Hennebert wrote:

Hi all,

>
> (Note for Fop-dev regarding the break-after problem:
> That said, I think there's a bug as a new page is created while
> there is
> nothing more but whitespace characters in the flow. If I remove the
> indenting so that all the remaining </fo:block> closing tags are
> sticked
> together (so there is really nothing after the breaking fo:block),
> a new
> page is still created. Is this a known issue? Is it related to the
> whitespace handling problem?)

I don't think so.
A new page is created, either with or without trailing white-space in
the blocks... So, how could this be related to white-space? :) (Quite
on the contrary, the above description excludes white-space-handling
from possibly being related, IIC)

I've been doing some browsing, but can't seem to find a reference
that indicates that the formatter should ignore the break-after
property on the last block in the page-sequence if it is empty --if
nothing prohibits the page-break, then force-page-count will do no
good. In the worst case, if you would set it to odd, it would result
in yet another extra page being added :/

I'll keep looking for that reference, but I wouldn't be surprised if
there are none. The conclusion that the break should be avoided seems
more like 'expected' than 'compliant' behaviour...

Have a look at section 7.19.1, "break-after" of the recommendation:
   "Specifies that the first normal area generated by formatting the
   next formatting object, *if any*, shall be the first one placed in a
   particular context (e.g. page-area, column-area)"

That means that if there is no further normal area, then there should be
no break. That sounds reasonable, after all. So I'm more and more
convinced that that's a bug.

Do you agree?

Vincent


Cheers,

Andreas

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to