On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 10:40:25PM +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> I was under the impression that the breaker automatically favors break
> decisions that take up less space. It even goes so far that if you have
> a minimum="0pt" and an optimum="2opt" on a space-before, that it
> currently chooses "0pt" which is not so good, actually.

Penalties would help. If there were a penalty associated with the
break below 'B', then the break above it becomes more favourable. I do
not think the breaker could do that otherwise (without the newly
proposed rule).
> Well, we have several documented examples on the Wiki which we could
> play through to see if the breaker is likely to make bad break decisions.
> But I get the impression that this avoids the topic I raised. :-) I
> think this here is not about whether these special break conditions are
> favored or avoided but if they should be allowed at all.
> On 27.07.2005 21:54:00 Simon Pepping wrote:
> > One thing that IMHO is still lacking in the table breaking code is
> > penalty values. ATM all penalties are 0. I believe the penalty value
> > should depend on the extra vertical size that the break contributes,
> > that is, on the penalty's width. I have no idea about the
> > multiplication constant, nor if it should be linear or quadratic. I am
> > not sure if it avoids the current case, but it is surely needed in
> > order to favour better breaks over worse ones.

Regards, Simon

Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl

Reply via email to