Thanks to Victor and Andreas for helping me here, although I'm still
confused.
On 27.01.2005 00:25:27 Victor Mote wrote:
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
Do you feel the contents of the block-container should not be
broken up at all? (Hence the analogy to a fo:external-graphic?)
No, sorry, I
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Thanks to Victor and Andreas for helping me here, although
I'm still confused.
On 27.01.2005 00:25:27 Victor Mote wrote:
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
Do you feel the contents of the block-container should
not be broken
up at all? (Hence the analogy to a
Thank you, Victor, now I think I finally understand what you mean.
However, I see is that this could lead to very funny results. Imagine a
BC with BPD set, overflow=repeat and reference-orientation=180. When the
contents overflow the first VPA, a new one is created under the first
(in BC parent's
On 26.01.2005 18:43:58 Victor Mote wrote:
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Now, I've got a different problem. I run accross a bug in
layout concerning block-containers with height/BPD specified
(absolute-position=auto). I tried to fix it but I can't
find the passage in the spec that tells me
Jeremias Maerki wrote:
Given a block-container where the BPD is specified, are its
children subject to column/page breaking if the whole
block-container doesn't fit into the available area in BP
direction? If yes, how is the remaining space in BP direction
My reading of the passage cited
-Original Message-
From: Jeremias Maerki [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...Anyway, maybe I should ask the question in a different way:
Given a block-container where the BPD is specified, are its children
subject to column/page breaking if the whole block-container doesn't fit
into the
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
In either case it seems to make little sense to speak of
'remaining space'
as in 'the space not allocated by descendant FOs inside the
b-c', unless you mean the space remaining on the _page_ after
the first child viewport for the b-c is added. The sum of the
please remove my email address in this list. Thanks.
--- Victor Mote [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
In either case it seems to make little sense to speak of
'remaining space'
as in 'the space not allocated by descendant FOs inside the
b-c', unless you mean the
try sending a message to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
-Original Message-
From: Feifei Lu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: woensdag 26 januari 2005 22:16
To: fop-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: RE: block-containers with BPD set
please remove my email address in this list. Thanks.
We can't unsubscribe you. To unsubscribe, you need to send an e-mail to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web Maestro Clay
On Jan 26, 2005, at 1:16 PM, Feifei Lu wrote:
please remove my email address in this list. Thanks.
--- Victor Mote [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
In either case it seems
-Original Message-
From: Victor Mote [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: woensdag 26 januari 2005 21:49
Just to be clear (not argumentative), I was saying something quite
different. For the example that Andreas has given, my
understanding is that there would only be one child
viewport
Andreas L. Delmelle wrote:
Do you feel the contents of the block-container should not be
broken up at all? (Hence the analogy to a fo:external-graphic?)
No, sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. I think the contents can (possibly,
depending on the overflow constraints) be broken up, but that
12 matches
Mail list logo
