Fabio Gianetti made a good comment . I answered like this . I'm currently thinking about how best to implement this. To keep it simple for the moment, we could implement "always" like before but remove/disable the overflow recovery I've implemented. That way, the content would again overflow. All integer values could be implemented as penalty=999 for the moment (thus allow some relaxing), at least until we have a good scheme about mapping integer keeps to penalty values like we started to discuss some time ago. However, this would disable the possibility to shove an element ahead n pages in the hope that there will be a page that the element fits on (the purpose of the overflow recovery). But that will be a very rare thing anyway, so I don't think there's any harm. Any objections?
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xsl-editors/2006JulSep/0001.html  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xsl-editors/2006JulSep/0003.html On 10.07.2006 14:21:35 Jeremias Maerki wrote: > I've just written to the XSL SG. Hopefully, the question gets answered > this time. > > On 22.06.2006 10:40:36 Peter B. West wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 16:50 +0200, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > > > > > > Have you tried the Disposition of Comments? I don't know how accessible > > > > they are to Google. > > > > > > They are accessible through the list archive at W3C. I've looked at > > > those I found but I found no listing of all XSL-related ones. > > > > Jeremias, > > > > I'm not sure that they are accessible. The only way I've ever been able > > to find them is by following links from messages in the xsl-editors > > list. > > > > It's not a big deal for me; I'll go with always=always. > > > > If you need it resolved, you might be best to write to the editors. Paul > > Grosso will probably respond quickly. > > > > Peter Jeremias Maerki