Comments below.

Chris Bowditch wrote:
Peter B. West wrote:


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.

Hi Peter - I dont think the spec needs to say auto-even or auto-odd here. Unless I'm missing something it seems clear to me that if initial-page-number="auto-odd" and the force-page-number="auto" on the previous page-sequence then a page must be forced when the first page sequence ends on an odd page.

My point is that the spec is *not* clear on this.

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

I dont see why it needs to re-query just because the last page number changed. After all the last page number changed as a result of communication between ps1 and ps2, so why go round again?

My purpose in setting this scenario out is to demonstrate that, in these circumstances, a requery is not necessary. In general, though, if you have a mutual dependency, and the conditions on one side of the dependency change, you're up for another round. In the circumstances outlined, the analysis indicates that no recursion is necessary.

However, there is nothing in the spec to indicate that a page sequence with force-page-number:auto should include its current last generated number in a query. It simply indicates that such a page-sequence should find out from the following page sequence whether its first number is odd, even or auto, in order to determine its own last page number. Unfortunately, the following page sequence may not be able to answer that question without first finding out what the last page number of the preceding page-sequence is.

The scenario I outlined goes beyond what the spec states in order to resolve the deadlock. If this process is intended by the editors, they need to spell it out.

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

and the extra dialogue would be unnecessary. Is this the intention?

I agree this extra dialog is unnecessary but I couldnt tell from the quotes you made why you think the spec implies that it is necessary.

Peter -- Peter B. West <>

Reply via email to