Hi, Kamal Bhatt a écrit : > Hi > I noticed a feature of keep-together="always". Basically it does exactly > that, even when it doesn't make sense. That is, it will overflow a block > instead of breaking across a page. Now, I have looked at the standard, > and it is fairly airy fairy about what keep-together="always" actually > does: > > *"always* > > Imposes a keep-together condition with strength "always" in the > appropriate context." > > What appropriate context means is anyone's guess. From what I have read,
The context here is the line, column or page, depending on whether the keep has a .within-line, .within-column of .within-page component. > some have interpreted this to mean that "always" is the highest possible > strength. Seems to me that makes sense. So is this bit of > "functionality" a bug? That's where I think there is room for interpretation and where I got confused last time. The common interpretation seems to be that "always" is more than just the highest possible strength: it prevents the content to be broken even if it overflows the context (line, column, page). Whereas even a very high integer value wouldn't prevent that. After all this makes sense: we can imagine situations where the user prefers the content to be clipped rather than broken over two, e.g., pages. "always" allows for that. If the user simply wants the content to be broken only if it doesn't fit, they would choose an integer value. While not being explicitely described by the spec, the last paragraph of section 4.8, "Keeps and Breaks", seems to imply that when saying "If not all of a set of keep conditions [...] can be satisfied...". Vincent --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
