On 18.12.2008 13:17:17 Georg Datterl wrote: > Hi Jeremias, > > I'll try that next year. I have quite a complicated table who should be > kept together except if it spans more than a page. Speaking of tables: > Given a table with two rows, two columns, cell in first column spans > both rows, is there a way to tell FOP: If there's a break between this > two rows, repeat the content of the split cell on next pages?
No. > I read the specification, but I did not quite understand it. Always > means "never break" and auto means "break, wenever you feel like it". > But numbers would mean, a keep or break can influence other keeps or > breaks. I can see a keep-with-next clash with a break-before or the > other way round or a keep on a block clash with a break on a sub-block, > but which strength does a "break because end of page/column/line is > reached" have? A break is always stronger than any keep. > Or a "break because otherwise it would not fit the page"? That's basically what the integer values allow. > Everything very complicated... Yeah, there you see what we have to build here. > Regards, > > Georg Datterl > > ------ Kontakt ------ > > Georg Datterl > > Geneon media solutions gmbh > Gutenstetter Straße 8a > 90449 Nürnberg > > HRB Nürnberg: 17193 > Geschäftsführer: Yong-Harry Steiert > > Tel.: 0911/36 78 88 - 26 > Fax: 0911/36 78 88 - 20 > > www.geneon.de > > Weitere Mitglieder der Willmy MediaGroup: > > IRS Integrated Realization Services GmbH: www.irs-nbg.de > Willmy PrintMedia GmbH: www.willmy.de > Willmy Consult & Content GmbH: www.willmycc.de > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:d...@jeremias-maerki.ch] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. Dezember 2008 12:43 > An: fop-users@xmlgraphics.apache.org > Betreff: Re: W: AW: Keep-together.within-page in FOP 0.95 > > On 18.12.2008 12:10:27 Georg Datterl wrote: > > Hi Jeremias, > > > > > <block keep-together.within-column="1"> <block>I use 30% > > > height</block> <block>I use 30% height</block> <block>I use 50% > > > height</block> </block> In this case, the 50% block is moved to the > > > next page if the layout engine doesn't find a better solution, for > > > example by keeping the first block on the previous page and keeping > > > the latter two together. (all assuming those nested blocks are > > > unbreakable for example by carrying a > > > keep-together.within-column="always") > > > > So, without a keep-together.within-column, the sequence would be: > > most preferable break: after third block. (impossible, since 110%) > > less preferable: after second block. (possible, if blocks before take > > <= 40%) even less preferable: after first block. (possible, if blocks > > before take 41% to 70%) even less preferable: before first block. > > (possible, if blocks before take >71% ) > > It's difficult to say exactly that as this also depends on the surrounding > content if any. A break before the first block will never happen if the > content above is the only content in the document. > > > => Meaning: fit as much as possible on the previous page > > More or less, yes. > > > So, with keep-together.within-column="1", the sequence would be (from your > > description): > > most preferable break: after third block. (impossible, since 110%) > > less preferable: after first block. (possible, if blocks before take > > <= 70%) even less preferable: after second block. ( would only happen > > if block2+block3 would use more than 100% and blocks before block1 > > would take <=40%) even less preferable: before first block. (possible, > > if blocks before take >71% ) > > Hmmm. At least what you can say is that the most preferable break is after > the third block. Whether then the break possibility after the first or second > block is more preferable depends on the surrounding content. > > > I don't understand why. > > I hope the above clears that up a bit. However, if you want an exact > description of how this works I have to give you a pointer into the > spec: > http://www.w3.org/TR/xsl11/#keepbreak > That explains everything though maybe in a very technical way and without > examples. > > > Of course my example was buggy, I meant: keep-with-next, not keep-together. > > :-) > > > What I was trying to say is: keep-with-next if in any way possible. > > Separate from next ONLY if both blocks together would never ever fit > > on a page, since they take more than 100%. > > > > <block> I use 30% height</block> > > <block keep-with-next="1"> I use 30% height </block> > > I don't really like the use of the shorthand. That can lead to nasty > side-effects, especially with keep-together. > > > <block>I use 50% height</block> > > > > would break before the second block, but > > Yes. > > > <block> I use 30% height</block> > > <block keep-with-next="1"> I use 30% height </block> <block>I use 80% > > height</block> > > > > would break after the second block. > > Yes. > > <snip/> > Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: fop-users-unsubscr...@xmlgraphics.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: fop-users-h...@xmlgraphics.apache.org
