The editors,

I am seeking clarification of the relationship between the force-page-number and initial-page-number properties in certain circumstances: specifically, when the value of force-page-number is "auto" and the value of initial-page-number on a following page-sequence is either "auto-even" or "auto-odd". Apart from the descriptions of the properties, I found no other discussion about the interaction of these properties.

The Rec says of force-page-number:auto, 'If there is no next page-sequence or if the value of its initial-page-number is "auto" do not force any page.' Should that read, '...the value of its initial-page-number is "auto", "auto-even" or "auto-odd"...'? If not, some questions of behaviour arise.

Say, for example, the last generated page of a force-page-number:auto page-sequence has an odd number, and the following page-sequence has an initial-page-number value of "auto-odd". The page-sequence queries the following page-sequence for first first page number. The second page-sequence, in turn, queries the first page sequence for its last page number. Who goes first?

Because the 1st page sequence is the only source of information on actual generated page numbers, the following scenario seems reasonable. The 1st sequence queries the 2nd, passing its current generated last page number. The 2nd then uses this number to generate a response. Let's say the generated last number is 11.

1st p-s: What's your 1st number (my last is 11)?

The 2nd calculates that it's first number must be 13, based on initial-page-number:auto-odd.

2nd p-s: 13

The 1st p-s now forces a blank page, numbered 12. If it were to query again, based on the new last page number, the dialogue would go

1st p-s: 1st number (12)?
2nd p-s: 13

and the extra dialogue would be unnecessary. Is this the intention? This approach avoids "holes" in the page numbering, but I note that the combination of force-page-count:odd and a following initial-page-number:auto-odd will force a such a hole.

Whatever the case, it would be worthwhile adding a clarification to the Rec.

Peter B. West <>

Reply via email to