Interesting,thanks. I've constructed that, in part to allow keep-with-next on first sub-item. But that feature was disbanded as a rapid succession of sub-bullets could lead to overly-large keep-together blocks (causing holes in the output) and left me wondering if I should undo the construct (as perhaps bad practice). But lo - I'll leave it in.
On 02/17/2012 07:32 AM, Pascal Sancho wrote: > Hi, > > The right construction should be to insert a sub-level list within a > parent list-item: > <fo:list-block> > <fo:list-item> > <fo:list-item-label>...</fo:list-item-label> > <fo:list-item-body> > <fo:block>my level 1 item</fo:block> > <fo:list-block> > <fo:list-item> > <fo:list-item-label>...</fo:list-item-label> > <fo:list-item-body> > <fo:block>my level 2 item</fo:block> > </fo:list-item-body> > </fo:list-item> > </fo:list-block> > </fo:list-item-body> > </fo:list-item> > </fo:list-block> > > That said, the XSL-FO design for *-indent can be confusing, so I prefer > render lists with a 2-columns table, that avoid to use > fo:block-container in fo:list-item-body (*-indent reset). > > Le 13/02/2012 16:50, Rob Sargent a écrit : >> We generate a lot of bullet-list text, to a depth of up to four levels >> of bullet. I'm wondering which is the better practice: to have a single >> list with all bullets or to have a separate list for each sub-bullet list. >> >> One advantage with the latter is that one can use keep-with-next to >> ensure that the first sub-bullet is shown with it's parent, but this is >> not (yet) a requirement and indeed might get ugly with a sequence of >> four bullets immediately descending to the max level. >> >> Any other pros and cons to these approaches would be very much appreciated. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
