On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 02:08:56PM +0100, gerhard oettl wrote:
> >------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-01-03 22:23 -------
> >I am not quite happy with the fact that checkForcePageCount is called
> >by the next page sequence. This is an interaction between page
> >sequences, and it is better dealt with by the controlling structure,
> >in this case AreaTreeHandler. In other words, I go with your
> >suggestion in the second *.
> 
> I had better orderd the open questions - so think them numbered:
> - 1) 
> - 2)
>   * 2a) 
>   * 2b) 
>   * 2c)
> 
> ad 1) 
> If there is no precedence for one of the choices i will change
> previousPageSeqLM from public to private as proposed in the question.

Agreed.
 
> ad 2) 
> I think it is the second "-" what you call the second "*" ?
> Because i couldn't think it a good idea to preserve the 
> PageSequenceLayoutManger at layoutmanger level and call it from area 
> level, so i think i shall do the changes 2a, 2b and 2c alltogether.
> 2c is a must anyway.

2b is the second *. I agree with your proposal to do all three changes
2a-c.

> >There is a little error in the last page sequence but one in your demo
> >file. It says that next is auto-even, which is not true.
> 
> yes
> If of any importance i can add a corrected fo to show the possibility 
> of missing pagenumbers in case of force-page-count="no-force".
> Let me know.

It would be good if you could turn it into a test file for the
layoutengine tests, which highlights all relevant
combinations of force-page-count and initial-page-number. Otherwise I
will do it.

>  .''`.   gerhard oettl   on   Debian/Gnu Linux
That's the best, as soon as I find out how to make my mike work. :-)

Regards, Simon

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

Reply via email to