Fabio Gianetti made a good comment [1]. I answered like this [2]. 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?

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xsl-editors/2006JulSep/0001.html
[2] 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

Reply via email to