On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 06:38:49PM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > Still, we're at a point where we should finally say yes or no to further > pursuing the new page breaking approach. Merging the branch back into > HEAD means a step back for a few features and on the other side a step > forward especially for keeps. I got the impression that the team is > pretty much committed to continue on this path and this vote should > confirm that. > > My vote: > At this point I'm only able to give a +0.95 where the missing 0.05 is > due to the fact that the Knuth approach has given me headache after > headache. There are pros and cons to the whole approach. I still cannot > fully exclude the possibility that we're not going to hit a dead end. > And I'm still not comfortable with the complexity in certain areas, > although you could probably say that it would be similarly complex with > the old approach. Anyway, I've gotten used to thinking in terms of boxes, > glue and penalties. Were it not for tables, my vote would have been > clearer.
I have a strong impression of the new approach. In fact I am feeling that with these algorithms FOP is going to have a superior approach to page breaking (in addition to line breaking), and hopefully to table breaking. My worry with the new approach is performance: We know that the algorithms require quite some computational steps, but we have no idea whether in the end performance on a large document will be acceptable or not. (Perhaps Luca has some experimental evidence from his own implementation?) Jeremias, what do you mean with complexity in certain areas? Tables only, or are there other complexities that you perceived as overwhelming? Despite the uncertainties, my vote is +1. Regards, Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
