Sounds good.  +1.

Thanks,
Glen

Jeremias Maerki wrote:

I'm not where I would like to be, yet (with table layout). Over all,
there is still a number of problems to be solved. These are (potentially
incomplete list):

- Table layout including header, footer, spans and borders (*)
- Markers
- before-floats and footnotes
- keeps and breaks on tables
- strength values for keeps
- the other known table-related problems as documented on the Wiki
- change of available IPD and BPD between pages
- last-page
- column-spanning and column balancing

(*) ATM I've got the basic algorithm but I'm stuck with the many details
that arise from the collapsing border model. I'm going to back off from
this for now and instead I'm going to try and at least make the separate
border model work. This model doesn't have these nasty interactions
between cells that keep my head spinning. Painting this stuff on paper
is hard enough, implementing it is even harder.

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.

Jeremias Maerki







Reply via email to