Well, it's all relative. :-) Moving to a different internal representation/handling of keep values inside the layout managers is probably the largest and most pervasive task in all this, one that I currently don't see a way around if we want to have "relaxed" keeps. I just want to make sure we use a representation that will also cover later improvements such as keep-*.within-page. But I still have not investigated how this latter feature would have to be implemented. Of course, we can also just do it XP-style and just cater for the problem at hand. Note, this is all very unrelated to your concrete proposal. I'm talking about the topic as a whole.
On 03.08.2006 14:06:49 Manuel Mall wrote: > On Thursday 03 August 2006 18:44, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > Hey Manuel, > > > > that's a very interesting idea. I think that could work. To me it > > looks like the biggest problems in the whole topic is determining the > > right representation of keep values inside the LMs and implementing > > .within-page for multi-column documents. I won't bother with second > > for the time being, but any opinions on the first? For me, that's the > > biggest question mark right now. The other problem, of course, is > > finding time and/or a sponsor to actually implement it. :-( > > > > Jeremias, > > enlighten me please - why is the representation of the keep values > inside the LMs a (difficult) problem? > > <snip/> > > > Manuel > > > > Jeremias Maerki > > Manuel Jeremias Maerki