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
I just tried running a sample FO that contained markers and got a nasty error. Are they broken due to the changes for Knuth page breaking. Do you anticipate any pain in fixing them?
<snip/>
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 understand why you are not 100% sure on this vote. However, I still believe we are making progress. Im not convinced the Knuth approach leads to a dead end. So heres my +1.
I understand peoples concerns on performance. I fully expect it to be slow once we get it working. I believe we should start looking for optimizations and time saving ideas once we have a solution that is working for most scenarios. If we try to make optimisations now, then they will be undone once we implement the missing features.
Chris
