On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 12:01 +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > Thanks, Peter. I went looking for that reference but wasn't lucky. I > gave up after almost 30 minutes. Could you dig up that reference for us? > > The only post I found was one by G. Ken Holman which was never answered: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xsl-editors/2005AprJun/0028 > > On 21.06.2006 11:04:53 Peter B. West wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 12:07 +0200, Luca Furini wrote: > > > Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > > > > > > On 19.06.2006 15:45:36 Luca Furini wrote: > > > > > It seems to me that the prescribed behaviour requires a keep > > > > > constraint > > > > > with force = "always" to be satisfied *always* :-), even if this > > > > > would > > > > > mean having some overflowing content. > > > > > > > > Obviously, we disagree here. I read it so that "always" can also be > > > > relaxed if the keep cannot be satisfied. Did anyone check what other > > > > implementations do? > > > > > > A quick test shows that AntennaHouse's xslformatter satisfies all the > > > keeps, even when this means having some content overflow the body region > > > (the overflowing content is actually clipped), while RenderX's xep > > > relaxes > > > a keep constraint in order to avoid overflows. > > > > >From memory, this issue was clarified in a posting to the editors list > > some time ago (2 years or more, I think.) "always" means "always", which > > makes sense.
I'll see if it's on the laptop at home. All I remember about it was that it was a reply from one of the editors. Where were you looking? Peter
