On 18 Mar 2011, at 00:30, Matthias Reischenbacher wrote: > <snip />
FWIW: I was just playing with the example, and noticed my suggestion --using keep.within-column-- does not help. This means, as Vincent suspects (IIC), that the culprit is the code that takes care of generating the element list in case of row-spanning cells, which inadvertently generates break-possibilities (i.e. does not take into account the keep that is dominating the ancestor fo:table) Comparing the case with and without row-span in a debug session reveals that, with row-span all BreakElements have penalty value 0, whereas without row-span, we get INFINITE, as expected. Looking deeper, in TableContentLM.getKnuthElementsForRowIterator(), notice that the case with row-span produces only one row-group, so the code that would set the keep constraint from the table --in the while loop, line 250-- never gets executed. The RowGroupLayoutManager gets passed a LayoutContext that is not properly initialized (keep="auto"). Regards, Andreas --- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
