On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 21:56, J.Pietschmann wrote: > Oleg Tkachenko wrote: > > btw, how does such a case addressed by the spec? Apparently FOP, antenna > > and xep do squeeze content. Isn't it an example of overconstrained > > geometry (5.3.4)? > > It can be interpreted as such in the presented case. Use height instead > of width and a table whose rows are kept together instead of a block to > make it more interesting (from the users point of view, for the processor > it may still be an example of overconstrained geometry, but this becomes > far fetched rapidly).
That suggests to me that the spec needs some work. How can it possible mean that it should go through every single possible combination of pages/blank pages to come up with a suitable solution. Does the area tree allow for multiple breaks between areas in the flow? (not including forced breaks) It doesn't say either way (that I can find) but I would hope the answer is no. Then you could say that anything that starts on the page will ensure that some of it is placed on the page. The keeps are dealt within the context of that page (and further flow) until a forced break but not in terms of an arbitrary future page that might fit the current content. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
