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