It's not against spec in my book either, but it's currently not
implemented in FOP, for table-row or for anything else.
The problem with all that keep-* stuff is that it's not that easy to do.
Actually, I was kind of mulling it over for table-rows, but so far, I
haven't gotten around to it.

Karen

Petr Andrs wrote:
> 
> Im XSL FO spec in article "6.7.9 fo:table-row" keep-together, keep-with-
> previous and keep-with-next properties are listed in "The following
> properties apply to this formatting object:". So why is keep-together
> on table-row considered against spec?
> 
> pa
> 
> On 17 Jul 2001, at 9:36 Alex McLintock wrote about Re: Keep-together
> (and the other ke :
> 
> >  --- Struan Judd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > If so might I request a small departure from the XSL:FO spec, if it is
> > > straight-forward to implement. Please allow keep-together on
> > > fo:table-row.
> > >
> >
> > I don't think deviations from the XSL:FO spec are either wise or going
> > to be popular.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

Reply via email to