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