https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44412





--- Comment #16 from Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  2008-04-29 01:35:11 
PST ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Created an attachment (id=21718)
 --> (https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=21718) [details]
> Illegal empty page inserted because of two consecutive break-before
> 
> I noticed that this change introduces a regression in the handling of breaks.
> In the following situation:
>     <fo:block break-before="page">
>       <fo:block break-before="page">
>         Some text. Some text. Some text. Some text.
>       </fo:block>
>     </fo:block>
> only one page break should occur. The empty box introduced by the change now
> triggers an additional page break. This used to work well with FOP 0.94.
> 

I've looked into this but I'm not so entirely sure if this is wrong. That 0.94
didn't produce an empty page was more or less a coincidence since an element
list with only a penalty(p=-INF) does not trigger page production. But now that
the parent fo:block of the block issuing the break-before creates a box(w=0), a
new page with only a zero-height block area is produced (ID production,
optional borders/padding). The constraints defined in
http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl11/#keepbreak are satisfied. The key part when talking
about break-before is:
"A break-before condition is satisfied if the first area generated and returned
by the formatting object is leading within a context-area." The spec doesn't
say anything about how the parent FO should behave in such a case.

I once again tried to find hints in the spec that the two break-before
properties should effectively be merged. But I didn't find anything.

In the end, if tables are implemented to merge the break-befores together but
the other block-level FOs don't do that, then IMO that's merely a behaviour
inconsistency inside FOP rather than a bug in one or the other parts. I believe
this needs some more discussion on fop-dev before we do any more about this
bug.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.

Reply via email to