On Aug 3, 2007, at 12:13, Chris Bowditch wrote:

Vincent Hennebert wrote:

I’m suddenly all confused about the supposedly expected behaviour of breaks. Please have a look at the attached FO file and its PDF result. We get 2 pages. The break-before on the outer block and the inner block are “merged” into just one... Why?

Well I can't explain it from a spec point of view. However, the current behaviour is what the users would expect. In my mind there is no business scenario where a page would contain just the top border of a block and nothing more. And if there was such a use case then there are far more straight forward ways of reaching such an affect, namely:

<fo:block border-top="solid 1pt black" break-after="page">&nbsp;</ fo:block>

Right. Another possible alternative is the slightly longer (I think, haven't tried):

<fo:block border-top="solid 1pt black" break-after="page" white-space- treatment="preserve"> </fo:block>

and this example, IMO, shows that the current behaviour is correct.
With default white-space- and linefeed-treatment, I would assume there is no 'empty area' before the inner block's first area, so the inner block is still leading on the second page.

Note that empty blocks by themselves, for example, also do not generate empty lines. Putting a thousand empty fo:blocks in sequence will accomplish exactly nothing. You need at least one preserved white-space character to achieve a 'displacement' effect in block- progression-direction.

If the breaks are also merged in case of preserved linefeeds and or spaces, then FOP would be in error.



Reply via email to